Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that No. 40845 Private William Gardiner, of the Royal Scots, severely wounded while serving with the Highland Light Infantry in France in June, 1917, received a final award in November, 1919, on the decision that the shrapnel wound in his leg was likely to give no further trouble; that this decision was reaffirmed at various subsequent examinations till, in January, 1937, he had to undergo an operation, in the course of which shrapnel was removed from the bone in one leg; that he had another operation in September, 1937, and 17 weeks hospital treatment in 1938; that since then his condition has steadily deteriorated, and that nevertheless no award has so far been proposed to supplement that based on a decision subsequently shown to have been in-accurate; and will he have this case re-examined?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): As I have already explained to my hon. and gallant Friend after a further very recent review of the case, the last period of treatment definitely established that Mr. Gardiner's crippled condition is due to osteo-arthritis. My medical advisers cannot relate that condition to the very small foreign body which was removed from his leg in 1937, or otherwise to war service. A recent examination showed that the wound in the leg is not of itself giving rise to any appreciable disablement.

Captain Ramsay: In view of the fact that the original award, which I under-

stand was under £50, was on the understanding that there would be no further trouble from shrapnel, and that in fact an operation to the man had to take place, would my hon. Friend see whether the case could not be considered by some other court to see if something could be done?

Sir W. Womersley: I am just as anxious as my hon. and gallant Friend that justice should be done, and I shall be very much obliged if he will see me after Questions and we will go through the case together in my room.

Mr. Poole: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in this, as in other similar cases—and there are a multitude of them —where there is an element of doubt, the-benefit of that doubt should be given to the applicant rather than to the Ministry?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the benefit of the doubt is given to the applicant. This is not a question of doubt at all as far as my medical officers are concerned. Probably the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the fact that I have no power to award any pension unless I have a certificate from the medical men of the Ministry to the effect that the disability is due to war service, and this House of Commons approved that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID WARNINGS.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Home Security whether he is satisfied that the distinction between the "All Clear" and the warning signals in the case of air raids is sufficiently marked?

The Minister of Home Security (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir. I think the distinction is sufficiently well marked, particularly if people bear in mind that the first signal is always the warning signal and that the signals which follow should invariably be the "All Clear".

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many Members of this House who had experience of air raid warnings in Spain, and that there it was found that the use of two different kinds of note was infinitely better than


merely different lengths of blast on the same note, and that in the case of the "All Clear" tall buildings and drift cause a die-away which makes the" All Clear "warning sound like the original warning?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. That matter was very carefully considered, and prolonged research and experiments were made before the existing apparatus for giving the signals was approved. As regards the use of different notes, it is, I think, the fact that many people find difficulty in memorising a particular tone, but no one whose hearing is clear can fail to distinguish between a note sustained for two minutes and a shorter note. There was, I confess at once, in the early hours of yesterday morning a good deal of confusion. That arose from circumstances which have been fully investigated and which should not recur. In fact, a telephonic communication at one point in London was mistaken for a warning signal. A siren was sounded and persons controlling signals round about were left in doubt as to whether they might themselves have made a mistake. The result was that over a considerable period warning signals were given. When the mistake was discovered a well-meant but unfortunate attempt to correct the mischief simply exaggerated the confusion. [Laughter.]I am being perfectly frank with the House. I realise the great importance of making these matters absolutely clear. I think that faulty synchronisation has a great deal to do with the confusion because imperfectly synchronised signals, although each individually is a sustained note, may give an impression of a fluctuating note. I am doing everything possible to secure better synchronisation.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: While realising that the human factor may sometimes break down, will the right hon. Gentleman go into this question with technicians to get the maximum difference between the warning note and the "All Clear" note?

Sir J. Anderson: That is exactly what I have been doing. There are various possibilities in the direction of intensifying the difference, and these will certainly be fully explored in the light of experience.

Mr. Bevan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his full reply, before he closes his mind to this matter, will he call for reports from the air-raid wardens all over London, because my impression is a very general impression, and perhaps their information might influence him?

Sir J. Anderson: The impression is the one I formed myself.

Captain Peter MacDonald: Would it not be possible to co-operate with the B.B.C. in order to have the "All Clear" signal given from Broadcasting House, as I am informed that a number of people in shelters were waiting for a signal from the B.B.C.?

Sir William Davison: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered the possibility, while having the signals which we have already been discussing, of some signal being given to the millions of people who have the telephone—the "All Clear" signal, at any rate?

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether proper principles have been worked out as to the magnitude and direction of a given threatened attack which will warrant a warning over a given area, particularly in view of the fact that one unidentified aircraft was held to justify the warning system given over half the British Isles?

Sir J. Anderson: That is rather a different question. My responsibility begins when communication of a prearranged kind is received from the Royal Air Force, but I do know that a very careful plan has been worked out, and it does provide for adjusting, in the light of experience, the areas over which warning is to be given, following the detection of aircraft in small numbers and in large numbers, as the case may be. To that I would only add that we have taken the view, for the present at any rate, that it is better to err on the side of safety. With regard to the other question put to me by my hon. Friends behind me, I can only say that every possible expedient will be considered, if experience should show that the existing system requires improvement?

Mr. Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep to one form and not bring in other agencies, such as broadcasting


and the telephone, because that multiplies the possibility of error of the human factor?

Sir J. Anderson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is very much in mind.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the danger signal should not be as loud as the calling off signal?

Oral Answers to Questions — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask whether the Prime Minister will make a statement with respect to the sittings of the House?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Apart from two Bills which we expect shortly to receive from another place, all the business which is immediately necessary is before the House. I think we shall be able to dispose of the outstanding business by Thursday, when I shall propose the adjournment of the House until Wednesday of next week. I shall, of course, make a further statement on business at a later date.

Mr. Greenwood: While realising that it is the desire of Members of the House not to be here when there is no work to be done, may I ask whether there is to be a continuing understanding that should the circumstances require it we may meet earlier?

The Prime Minister: Certainly.

Mr. Neil Maclean: If we have to meet earlier than next Wednesday, will the Prime Minister see to it that the notification calling us earlier is done in a more systematic manner than occurred last week? Very many Members who live a considerable distance from London did not get the notification in time, because they were away, probably in their constituencies, doing other business, and they were unable to come on the date set apart, with the result that when they did arrive it was too late, the House had adjourned and they had to travel back to Scotland the same night and be called back again two days later. Cannot some method be adopted other than broadcasting? Could not telegrams be sent to the homes of Members of Parliament so that they may know when Parliament is to meet?

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the Prime Minister ask Herr Hitler to communicate with Mr. Speaker as to what steps he proposes to take?

The Prime Minister: The House may be assured that every effort will be made to cause as little inconvenience to hon. Members as possible, if the occasion should arise for our meeting earlier. Of course, we have to work at very short notice. I am quite aware that considerable difficulties must have been caused in individual cases on the last occasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE(EMERGENCY).

Ordered,
That the Resolution ' Import Duties (Emergency Provisions) ' to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such Resolution, and that more than one stage of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may be proceeded with at any Sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance. — [The Prime minister]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

IMPORT DUTIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS).

3.4 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move,
That it is expedient
(a)that for the purposes of the making of any order or the approval of any scheme which, under the existing law could be made or approved by the Treasury if recommended or submitted by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, the Treasury should have power during the present emergency to act without any such recommendation or submission and without regard to considerations to which the said Committee are required to have regard in making recommendations or submissions: and that any consequential amendments of the enactments relating to the matters aforesaid should be made; and
(b)that the powers of the Treasury and of the Board of Trade to grant exemptions from customs duties in the case of machinery, instruments and apparatus, iron and steel goods, and goods subject to Section one of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, should during the present emergency be extended."
Later, I shall ask leave to introduce a Bill founded on this Ways and Means Resolution. The main purpose of the Bill is a comparatively simple one, namely, that during the period of emergency, or for a lesser period, the statutory functions of the Import Duties Advisory Committee shall be suspended, and the power of making an Order or granting a licence or approving any drawback scheme, which the Treasury now has, after having received a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee, shall be exercised by the Treasury in spite of the fact that there has been no such recommendation. Apart from the suspension of the Advisory Committee the normal procedure under the Import Duties Act will not be altered. Under the Act, the Treasury in making an Order, having received a recommendation, has to consult "the appropriate Department," whether it be the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture or any other Department concerned. That statutory duty remains unaltered, as does the procedure of laying Orders before this House, whether under the practice

that has been in operation for a number of years, by negative Resolution, or, as has been done sometimes by affirmative Resolution, in the case of the necessity to give approval to Orders imposing new or additional duties of Customs. Those are the effects of the first part of the Resolution.
The second part of the Resolution to which I would call attention gives power to the Treasury to act
 without regard to considerations to which the said committee are required to have regard in making recommendations or submissions.
The object of that provision is that when making such Orders, if any, the Treasury will not have to be bound by the necessities which the Statute lays upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Under the Import Duties Act, 1932, Section 3, the Advisory Committee are empowered to recommend that additional duty should be charged on goods which "in their opinion" are either articles of luxury or articles of a kind which are being produced or are likely to be produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to the United Kingdom consumption. This limiting condition is to be omitted during the period of the emergency, as also is the provision of Section 3 (2) by which it is laid down that
in deciding what recommendation, if any, to make for the purposes of this Section, the Committee shall have regard to the advisbility in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interest generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, including those of trades and industries which are consumers of goods as well as those of trades and industries which are producers of goods.
Hon. Members will recollect that an elaborate procedure is laid down for this purpose involving many stages. Representations have to be made to the Committee, advertisements by the Committee' of such applications as they receive have to be made and the Committee have to have time to consider the recommendations and take evidence. They then have to decide whether or not to make a recommendation to the Treasury or to suspend action or to reject the application. These proceedings are not suitable in time of war. It may not, for instance, be possible to get all the necessary evidence. Moreover, the particular considerations involved may not be paramount in the


national interest. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have existed for the purpose of trying to foster British trade and to develop new industries in this country. That is not the highest objective in time of war, when the chief objective is to get on with the work of being successful in winning the war. For these reasons we have introduced the Bill. It must be left to the Government to take the final decision in these matters rather than to wait until recommendations are received, even from so able a body as the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The question here and now is not so much that of fostering trade and finding employment for people, but far bigger questions are involved with regard to the control of imports and the availability of foreign exchange. These, briefly, are the reasons why we ask leave to introduce the Bill.
In paragraph (b), therefore, the powers of the Treasury and the Board of Trade to grant exemptions from Customs duties in the case of machinery, iron and steel goods and other imports will be made more general, and not subject to certain limiting conditions which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to observe in war time.
Generally speaking, there is no intention of making wide alterations in the Customs duties as they now exist, but if the Committee agree to take the Second Reading of the Bill to-morrow and the subsequent stages on the following day, hon. Members will have an opportunity of seeing what it contains. However, they may take it from me that there is no point in it which I have not covered in my short speech.

3.11 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I have to thank the Government for having given us some considerable notice of this matter and I have looked at the Bill carefully in the short time available. I should like to say at once that I find nothing in the procedure to which main objection can be taken, nor to the procedure which is to be followed in passing the Bill through its remaining stages. One would like to say what he thinks about the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but this is not the time for such comments. For myself, I feel much safer in the position of what I would call the direct responsibility

of Government Departments to the House for procedure as well as for final decision in these cases, and there will be no objection on the part of the various interests concerned being able to get direct to the Treasury in the making of an Order or in the amendment of an Order.
I feel it is incumbent upon us to give this authority to the Government in view of the warning received yesterday of the strictures which may be imposed upon us in regard to shipping space. It must, obviously, be in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade that many things which we wish to restrict by taxation ought to be allowed to come in freely. I think there can be no opposition to the procedure. The Financial Resolution also gives the Government power to extend certain of its functions in dealing with specific commodities, and I should like to have an assurance that the Government are, in the case of supplies of foods which are absolutely essential, going to take powers immediately to vary the present restrictions and taxation on the imports of food and essential materials and thus be able to deal with the situation which may arise. With these considerations we shall offer no opposition to the proposal or to the procedure.

3.13 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I would like to make a reference to the Import Duties Advisory Committee as I took a part in bringing it into the world. I have not sung its praises, but I realise that the three members of the Committee have always done their work with great diligence and impartiality. I have never been in love with the procedure, and if the matter is to be simplified, if Ministers are to have a more direct responsibility and will not be able to take cover behind the recommendations of the Committee, we need express no great regret. Incidentally, I should like to know what is to happen to these distinguished gentlemen? Are they to be put into cold storage or kept in being, receiving their salaries, or will their great abilities be diverted to some more useful purpose? I think that, apart from luxuries, imports on the whole should be encouraged. It is reasonable to assume, particularly in regard to food imports, that if we can get them into the country we are adding to the national strength in carrying out the supreme task of bringing the war to a successful issue. I think the Government might give a lead in


these matters to traders and to the public as to what their policy is.
As to luxuries, I agree that in the interests of the exchange and the economy of cargo space they should be discouraged. I remember the much maligned McKenna Duties. They have been made the excuse for all sorts of policies since they were initiated. They were put on for the definite purposes of assisting the exchange position and economising cargo space, both excellent purposes in time of war. It would be a good thing if the Government would take the opportunity of making clear to traders, merchants and shipowners exactly what their policy is, so that the business world can co-operate with the Government in discouraging the importation of goods which do not help the prosecution of the war and permitting the import of such goods, irrespective of whether they come under the category of goods manufactured in this country, which in the national interest should be imported on as large a scale as possible

3.16 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I be permitted for a moment to acknowledge the value of the work done by the Import Duties Advisory Committee since it came into existence" That the Resolution ' Import Duties (Emergency Provisions) ' to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such Resolution, and that more than one stage of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may be proceeded with at any Sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance. —and into existence against the intensive opposition of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)? Those who are concerned in the protection of the home market are quite satisfied with the change which is being made in the circumstances. We are confident that the Treasury in the exercise of these new functions will give full consideration to the exigencies of industry, in the same way as the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We accept the Resolution, and we shall do everything we can to co-operate with the Treasury in making the new procedure a success.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution reported, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Committee to sit again To-morrow. Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stanley, and Captain Crookshank.

IMPORT DUTIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to make temporary provision for the exercise of powers, which are exercisable

on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, without any such recommendation, and for the extension of certain powers of the Treasury and the Board of Trade in relation to duties of customs and excise and drawbacks thereof, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (WAR SERVICE) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Education for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable war service to be treated as contributory service, approved external service or qualifying service for the purpose of the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1937

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.21 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I want to say that generally the Bill appears to be satisfactory, but I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some enlightenment on two points. In Clause 5 —

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should raise these points on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Cove: The point I want to raise has reference to the position of unemployed teachers.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which the hon. Member should raise on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (WAR SERVICE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE 2 — (War service of persons training or trained as teachers.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.23p.m.

Mr. Cove: I should be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would say a word or two about Sub-section (5) of this Clause, which ends with the words:
the Board may determine to be the date on which that course would have been completed shall be treated as a period of contributory service.
While the provisions passed during the last War were generally satisfactory, there were one or two detailed cases which caused a great deal of trouble afterwards, and I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman will say a word or two about this Sub-section.

3.24p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am not quite clear what the hon. Member means. Only the period of the student's war service which falls after the date when his course would have ended if he had not undertaken war service is treated as contributory service. I do not know that there are any special cases likely to arise out of that.

3.25p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: May not the following position arise? A young man who has gone into college is called upon to undertake service. He has completed, say, 12 months of his course and he then has 12 months or two years to go, and as a result of his education having been interrupted, it may take him three years afterwards before he completes the course which will entitle him to become a teacher. It is within the power of the Board to determine from what date contributory service which is incorporated in Army service shall begin. Will there be taken into consideration the fact that it has taken such a person two years to complete his course rather than the 12 months which would have been the case had he gone straight forward, and will this be reckoned by the Board as being contributory service for the purposes of the Bill?

Mr. Lindsay: Certainly, it will be recognised as a qualifying period, but I would like to have notice of that question. I think each case will be treated on its merits, but I am not sure whether it will be recognised as contributory.

3.26p.m.

Mr. Cove: I recognise that it is impossible to discuss these technicalities

across the Floor of the House, but will the hon. Gentleman give a promise that he will have a talk with some of us about this matter in order that we may be satisfied in our own minds?

Mr. Lindsay: By all means. I think the case raised is a very real case. There is a Clause which covers it as qualifying, but not as contributory.

Mr. Tomlinson: This Sub-section gives power to the Minister to determine. What we are asking is that, when the Bill is passed, the Minister shall determine to the advantage of the student.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask whether it is intended to take the Report stage of the Bill to-day or to-morrow?

Mr. Lindsay: I think to-day.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11 — (Interpretation.)

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: This Clause deals with the interpretation, and I want to refer to the position of the teacher who is not included under the interpretation and will need to be included if he is to come under the Bill. I refer to the unemployed teacher who has not been employed since he left college and who, therefore, has not entitled himself to be in the superannuation scheme. Probably he would be the first individual to be affected by the Measure we are now discussing. If he goes into the Services to-day and becomes a teacher after he is demobilised, he will not qualify for benefits under this Bill because of the fact that he has had no previous employment. There is a number of young men at the present time who have gone through their college training and qualified as teachers, but have not yet been in a post. All others are catered for in this Bill, but such men are not, and I think the Committee would desire that provision should be made for them.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I wish briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Tomlinson). I do not pretend to understand all the technical details of the Bill, but as far as I understand it, the unemployed teacher has not


given contributory service, and therefore, if he renders war service, that service will not be counted for superannuation purposes. I should be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would say whether I am right in that interpretation, and, if so, whether something cannot be done to remove an injustice towards these teachers, who, although they have been through a period of training and have qualified, have been unfortunate enough not to get employment, particularly in some of the distressed areas.

3.29 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I think that possibly there are real cases of hardship with the unemployed teachers. It is true that there is a number of them at the present time. They have no employment and therefore, would not qualify for the contributory scheme, but their period will start from the day of war service as qualifying, and according to the Bill, some of them will pay 5 per cent. of the normal pay, plus the 2 per cent. which will be their portion of the employer's payment, they not having an employer previous to their being called up. Perhaps the hon. Member would consult with me about this. I would like to look into the matter closely to see whether it is possible to give him a more satisfactory reply, but the position under the Bill is as I have stated it.

Mr. Cove: Will there be any opportunity now for consultation or for dealing with the point?

Mr. Lees-Smith: If the Report stage of the Bill is to be taken to-day, there will be no opportunity of consulting my hon. Friends on this point. But is there any real necessity for taking the remaining stages of the Bill to-day? Under the present time table we know we have to meet on Thursday, and I suggest that the Report stage of the Bill might be taken to-morrow and that this point should be considered in the meantime.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: What is the position of a teacher who has just left the training college, having completed his two years training last July? That teacher if appointed to a post would probably have been due to start, let us say, some time in September. If in the meantime as a member of the Territorial Army, he has been called up, he will not be in a posi-

tion to start work in the school. Is such a teacher covered by the Bill, and, if not, is it possible to include him?

Mr. Lindsay: I am afraid that there is no portion of this Bill which covers the unemployed teacher during the period after he leaves college but when he goes into war service, as far as I can see, he is eligible to count the period as qualifying for pension.

Mr. Cove: That is not satisfactory.

Mr. Lindsay: He himself would not be eligible to pay, and necessarily he is not covered by the contributory scheme.

Mr. Cove: I must say definitely that that is not satisfactory, and as this is a very important point I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to find some way of meeting it.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Yesterday I suggested inserting a time limit in these Bills, in order to give opportunity for adequate discussion later. In this case the Minister has made the rather unsatisfactory suggestion that hon. Members who are interested in the matter should talk it over with him. In view of the serious character of this omission from the Bill, would it not be more desirable, even if we pass the Bill now, to have a committee of those Members who are particularly interested in this subject to go into the whole matter further, with a view to bringing in new proposals to correct any weaknesses in the Bill as at present drafted?

Mr. Lees-Smith: It has just been made clear to me that there is not to be any Report stage. I, therefore, suggest that the hon. Gentleman should discuss this question with my hon. Friends and if it is clear that some Amendment is necessary, give an assurance that such an Amendment will be made in another place.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I did say that I would consult with the hon. Members opposite. I realise that this point is not covered by the Bill and I am not sure whether it is a point which should be covered by this Bill, but I will inquire further and see whether any Amendment could be moved in another place. If not, I will under-


take to go into this matter with the teachers' organisations and other persons concerned, because I think there is a real point involved.

Mr. Gallacher: Why not have a small committee of those Members who are interested in this question, to go into the matter with the Minister, even though we pass the Bill at this stage?

Mr. Lindsay: The answer is very simple. This is a technical point and it is a matter which can easily be settled if I consult those who are experts on this, in the teaching profession.

Mr. Cove: As far as the hon. Member's offer goes, I accept it, with the reservation that we may not be satisfied at the end.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS (WAR SERVICE) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the war service of clerks and deputy clerks of the peace, coroners and persons employed by local and public authorities and certain undertakers it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase resulting from the operation of the said Act in expenditure which is authorised by any enactment to be paid out of moneys so provided.

Resolution agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS (WAR SERVICE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1—(Payments to make up civil remuneration.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I wish to give the Minister of Health an opportunity of dealing

with two questions which were raised yesterday, one by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). The first is in relation to the words:
a sum which shall not exceed the remuneration which he would have received if he had continued to serve in his civil capacity.
Does that cover any progressive increase of remuneration as a result of promotion coming in the ordinary course? The other point is whether mental hospital authorities, not being directly under the control of borough councils or of the London County Council, would be appropriate authorities under the Bill.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Under Sub-section (2) of this Clause it is possible for the appropriate authority to make up the pay of a man who is engaged in war service. I do not know whether this would be the appropriate occasion for a statement from the Government on this question, but many people, both local authorities and private employers, are awaiting the action of the Government with regard to their own direct employés in this connection. There are many employers anxious to be as generous as they can, consistently with their finances, to those who have gone into the different services. Naturally and properly they will be guided, to a large extent, by the action of the Government. I am sure that the Government, as a model employer, would like to give the best lead possible, and perhaps it would be possible for the Minister, on this Clause, either to make some statement or to indicate that he will take an early opportunity of making such a statement which would be helpful to many people.

The Chairman: I do not think that is a question which would strictly be in order on this Clause, but if the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government is prepared to give a short reply to the hon. Member I shall raise no objection. It is not, however, a matter which I could allow to be debated at this stage.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: There is one further point that I should like to raise before we part with this Clause, which is the principal operative Clause of the Bill. As was pointed out by the Government spokesman in the Second Reading Debate


yesterday, it is a purely optional Bill, and it will rest within the discretion of each local authority to decide whether or not it will make up the salaries of those of its employés who are serving with the Forces. It is clearly the intention of the Government that the machinery of this Bill should be used by the local authorities, but I have heard only this morning that one large municipal authority in the North of England has already passed a resolution stating that it proposes to take no steps at all to make up the salaries of those of its employés who are serving. That has happened in one case, and it may happen in other cases. I do not suppose that the vast majority of local authorities will behave in that way—I am sure most of them will take advantage of the provisions of the Bill—but I should like the Minister to tell us that this Bill is not necessarily the Government's last word on the subject, and that if we have a few local authorities declining to avail themselves of the provisions of the Measure while the great majority are doing so, he will at a later stage at any rate consider the advisability of making this a compulsory Measure.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I am thinking of a lot of little townships which are at present rated up to 22s., 23s. and even 30s. in the £ and some of whose employé's are going to be called up. They may be getting a miserable 17s. or 25s. or 30s. from the Government, but their salaries may have been £4 a week. They are to be called up, and the local authorities are expected to pay the difference. If people living next door to them are called up, are the employers going to make up the difference? Is the mining community going to make it up for some of the chaps who are called up at the pit? Not likely. They do not do anything of the kind, and they did not do it in the last War. They gave certain facilities. They may have granted coal, but they did not grant rents free, and at the pit where I worked while that War was on the men themselves gave over £50,000 to help their men who were away out of their wages, but the employers were not bound to, and they did not. Whilst they were fairly generous, they did not contribute any money towards the wages of those men, which are not salaries.
I could not sit still here to-day—I am speaking for myself only—and ask the Minister of Health to make it obligatory upon local authorities to make up the salaries of their employés who are called up. If, say, 75 per cent. of them are called up, and somebody else has to replace them, the local authorities will have to pay those who are replacing them and are they also to pay their staffs while they are away? I hope the Minister will not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, because there will be far more people called up who are not employés of local authorities than who are employés of local authorities, and those persons will not get their wages made up as far as the recompense that is given to them as soldiers is concerned. I hope the Minister will hold out and not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. I have been a member of a local authority for 33 years without a break, and I do not feel like going to my people and moving that they shall make up the salaries of their employés who are serving, while there is somebody else living next door, it may be, who may volunteer to go up and who will get only his Army allowance. I want the Minister to be very careful in this matter.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) suggested that some indication might be given that this is not the last word of the Government, and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), quite naturally, took very strong exception to any undertaking of that kind being given by the Government. I can reassure him. Obviously, I have no intention of giving an undertaking of that kind, that a Bill to make these provisions compulsory will be introduced in the future. Clearly it would be out of order to do so, on this occasion, at any rate. I merely say— and this deals also with the point made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) —that these Bills that we are passing are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians and can never be altered or modified by one jot or little. These are provisions that we are bringing forward to deal with the present position, and naturally they will all, from time to time, have to be reconsidered in view of the development of the situation, but we must all recognise—the point of


the hon. Member for Hemsworth is of very great importance—that to make this kind of thing compulsory might do more injustices than the injustices that it remedied.

Mr. Foot: But surely the injustice, if it be one, to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) referred is an injustice which will arise whenever the conditions of this Bill are adopted by any local authority, and the argument brought forward by the hon. Member was really an argument against the whole Bill.

Mr. Elliot: I do not wish to be led away. I think the very fact that the Bill is not compulsory makes it possible for local authorities to meet some cases, where obviously there is some injustice, and in turn to refrain from applying the Measure where it might produce considerable injustice. This is much more flexible than a compulsory Bill, and it must be regarded in the nature of an attempt to arrive at a gentlemen's agreement in hard cases, as I said yesterday. Its provisions, as I say, might very well be applicable in certain cases and not in other cases. I do not wish to go further than that, because we agreed that there should be a certain latitude, and if local authorities do not operate it, they must be left to the judgment of their electors. In answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), it is certainly not our intention in the Government to leave this Measure a dead letter. It is our intention to deal with cases in a fair and reasonable manner as far as the employés of the Government are concerned, leaving it to others to treat their employés as they wish to do. We, as a great employer of labour, intend to avail ourselves of like provisions, and of course, I hope that other employers also will agree to do that. I think we are indebted to the Chair for having allowed us so far to transgress the Rules of Order on this occasion.
In answer to the other points raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), whether certain quasi local authorities were in fact included— he mentioned in particular mental hospital committees—the answer is "Yes." The hon. Member also put up the point of the Metropolitan Water Board. I undertook to look into that matter, and I have done

so, and the answer is "Yes, that body also is included." In fact, everything included in the very wide definition of local authorities is included, and the only things that are not included are bodies that are not local authorities. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) raised the question of a body on Tyne-side. It is not a local authority within the terms of that very wide definition, so that it does not come under the Bill. It would be impossible in this Measure to legislate for all the innumerable bodies which are of a quasi statutory character, some of which are not bound by compulsory provisions of the kind which this Bill is intended to remedy. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will take it from me that we have stretched the bounds of the term "local authorities" to the widest possible extent here, and that we must refrain from doing it further, because we might find ourselves legislating in a manner that would create other difficulties instead of clearing them away.

Mr. David Adams: Is it intended to introduce legislation to bring the bodies which I have mentioned, who are large employers of labour and non-profit statutory authorities, within the purview of similar legislation?

Mr. Elliot: There is an infinite variety of such bodies covered by an infinite variety of provisions, and any body which is already entitled to the superannuation benefit of the Act of 1937 is already brought within the provisions of the Bill by Clause 7. We shall need to examine one by one the bodies that are outside, and if injustices arise we shall do our best to see that they are remedied.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4. — (Payment of Contributions.)

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, to leave out ''may,'' and to insert ''shall.''
This deals with the question of the superannuation contributions of local government employés who are called up to serve in the Forces. It is provided in the earlier part of the Clause that where a local authority adopts the provisions of Clause 1 and makes up the


salary of its employé to what it would be in time of peace if he were back in his job, the employé pays his own superannuation contribution. The Sub-section with which we are now concerned deals with the case where the local authority does not avail itself of Clause 1 and does not make up the salary. In that case the Clause provides that the local authority may pay the man's contributions for him. It is not going very far to ask that in such cases the local authority should be bound to pay the superannuation contributions. If they decide in their wisdom that they will not make up a person's pay, at any rate let them pay these comparatively small sums in order to save his superannuation rights. We can easily envisage the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) on Clause 1, where a man receiving £4 a week or more suddenly has to go down in the scale and receive private soldier's pay. It would be difficult for him to keep up his superannuation contributions. If, therefore, the local authority elects not to use the power given by the Bill, it is not unreasonable to ask that it should pay the man's contributions while he is away. There is one apparent anomaly in this Clause to which I drew attention on Second Reading. I pointed out that in Sub-section (4) —

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member going to talk on his Amendment, or is this a question that should come up on the Motion "That the Clause stand part "?

Mr. Foot: I am talking of my Amendment and am about to illustrate the contrast between Sub-sections (3) and (4). The object of my Amendment is to bring Sub-section (3) into line with Subsection (4). In the case of probation officers it is made compulsory on the probation authorities to pay the superannuation contributions of an officer who is serving in the Forces. It seems rather strange that it should be compulsory in one case and not in the other.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I think that, perhaps owing to the rapidity with which these Bills, which are of a highly technical nature, are brought forward, a certain misconception has arisen over this point. There is no question of the discretion of a local authority whether it pays or does not

pay. This is a question of machinery whether it pays annually or pays an aggregate amount into the fund. The only point about the proviso for probation officers is that the machinery for their superannuation lays down that it must be paid annually. Therefore, the discretion which local authorities enjoy as to whether they should pay annually or make up the fund in a quinquennial period is not appropriate in the case of the probation officers. In both cases the rights of the individual are fully secured, and there is no injustice to a person who is not a probation officer.

Mr. Foot: That may deal with the difference between the probation officer and the local government officer, but I do not think it meets the principal point which I made. This Sub-section says:
 For any other part of the period of his war service "—
that is, the part in respect of which the local authority is not making up his salary—
the appropriate authority, if the superannuation allowance to which any such person might become entitled would be payable out of a superannuation fund, may pay in respect of him to that fund the aggregate amount which he would have been liable to contribute to that fund had he continued to serve in his civil capacity.
It is left in the discretion of the local authority whether they will or will not pay contributions which the man himself would have been liable to pay.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member must read this in connection with Clause 3. It is no question of the man himself having to pay under either alternative. The person who is serving will have his contributions paid by his former employer. Therefore, his rights are not prejudiced. The only point here is a machinery point whether the payments are made in respect of annual periods or whether they are aggregated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9. —(Superannuation of persons employed in civil defence service.)

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out from "service," to "or," in line 34.


This Clause begins by saying:
Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the employment of any person by a local authority in civil defence service shall not, for superannuation purposes, be deemed to be employment by that authority, unless that person—'
Then follow a number of conditions which have to be satisfied if the service is to rank for superannuation. I am concerned with paragraph (b),in which the conditions are twofold. The first is that the man must be
 transferred during the said period to civil defence service from some other service under the same authority which was pensionable service.
The second condition is that in his new employment he must receive remuneration not less than that of the post from which he was transferred. In each case he is employed by the local authority, as I understand it, because he has been transferred to some form of civil defence work which is under the control of the local authority. If I read the Clause correctly it means this: Suppose that a man is transferred to a civil defence job and receives a lesser salary, then his service in civil defence is not to rank for superannuation. I may be wrong, but I think I am right. It is difficult to see why this should be so. Suppose you have a man who has been earning £3 5s. a week, and he is transferred, say, from the town clerk's department to some job in connection with A.R.P. still under the council. Suppose that his salary in the new post is only £3 a week. Under the Clause as it stands, because he is receiving £3 instead of £3 5s. the period during which he serves in his new job will not rank for superannuation. If I am wrong in my interpretation perhaps the Minister will tell me, but if I am not wrong it does seem to me to be a remarkable anomaly.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: Again I say that because these matters are extremely technical it is not to be wondered at that hon. Members, and indeed Ministers, sometimes have great difficulty in reaching an exact interpretation of some of the Clauses. The hon. Member was good enough to discuss with me yesterday privately this particular paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1), and that gave me an opportunity of going into it with my advisers. I am advised, after

having given the matter some study, that the interpretation which the hon. Member fears is not in fact the interpretation which the Clause bears. The Clause is to the advantage of the man and not to his disadvantage. It arises from the fact that the position of a man taking up one of these services is treated as though he had joined the Army, and that is not employment in the ordinary sense. Take an example. A clerk drawing £4 a week is appointed by his authority, let us say, to be a full-time air-raid warden at £3 a week. He would, under Clause 3 of the Bill and under the definition of war service, be able to reckon the £4 a week as his salary for superannuation purposes. A man drawing £4 a week in his ordinary occupation who is appointed to hold an A.R.P. position at £5 a week would, of course, by virtue of Sub-section (1, b)of Clause 9 be able to reckon the £5 as his wages for superannuation purposes. The point about which there was some dubiety in the hon. Member's mind related to the case of a man transferred to work at a lower rate of pay, say from £4 to £3 a week. The effect of this Clause is to make it possible for him to reckon the 4 a week of his original employment for superannuation purposes. Therefore a man's position is completely safeguarded in both cases. With that assurance I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied and that he will not press the Amendment.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which amounts to this, that Clause 9 actually means the precise opposite of what it says. These words are perfectly clear. The Clause says that the period of employment shall not, for superannuation purposes, be deemed to be employment by that authority unless that person receives in respect of his employment in Civil Defence services remuneration not less than that which he would have received if he had not been so transferred. If that stands, the Clause would appear to be capable of only one meaning. Although, of course, I am prepared to accept the Minister's explanation that a different interpretation would be put upon it if it be read with Clause 3, it does seem to me that the drafting is open to a good deal of criticism, and I respectfully suggest that it might very well be reconsidered before the Bill


reaches another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15. —(Application to Scotland.)

4.8p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 13, line 26, to leave out "Scottish Education Department," and to insert ''Secretary of State."
The reason for this Amendment is that the Scottish Education Department ceased to exist yesterday under the Reorganisation of Offices Act, the functions of the Department being transferred to the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

4.9 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I asked the Minister whether he would consider Item 17 in the Schedule so as to cover a charity or trust, and as this has not been done I assume that the Minister has not found it necessary. I take this opportunity, as the Under-Secretary of the Home Office is present, to express the hope that charities will be considered, if not here then elsewhere, for great hardship and many difficulties and much waste of money may occur if the Charity Commissioners are not empowered to a greater extent than at present to modify trust deeds in precisely the circumstances contemplated by my right hon. Friend in the case of educational institutions.

Mr. Elliot: Of course this is a Local Government Bill and covers bodies within the definition of the Local Government Acts. Any such body as my hon. Friend mentioned is outside the scope of the Bill. I will consider the position of such bodies, and if injustices arise we shall do our best to see that legislation is introduced to deal with them.

Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE(EMERGENCY POWERS) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Labour in case of war to modify or suspend the operation of any of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, and make provision with respect to any of the matters to which the said Acts relate, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, out of moneys so provided.
Resolution agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

CALUSE 1— (Power of Minister of Labour to make regulations adapting statutory system of unemployment to wartime conditions.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. and hon. Friends did not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but it is necessary, in view of our experiences in the past, that we should get some assurance upon what is contained in Clause 1. The Clause gives very wide powers to the Minister. I will mention two points in order that the concrete cases which I propose to give and my anxiety about them will be understood. The Clause states that the Minister of Labour is to have power to make regulations adapting the statutory system of unemployment to war-time conditions. It may be said that, with the Minister who is in office at the present time, it could be safely left to him, but some of us have heard that statement made at various conferences held throughout the country, and although many people had confidence in the


Minister at that time my confidence was not as great. I indicated it at those conferences and events later proved that my suspicions were right. The same thing may happen again and I will give two or three concrete illustrations to explain why we feel anxiety and want assurances upon various points before we part with this Clause.
Hon. Members on this side will remember that between 1912 and 1921 the number of contributors to National Unemployment Insurance was very restricted. Men in the trade with which I am particularly familiar paid in regularly from 1912 to 1920 without losing a week's work and having to ask for benefits. After the last war millions of additional people were brought into the insurance system, and that restricted number of contributors had to bear the financial obligations which followed, whereas it is our contention that those obligations ought to have been spread over the whole of the State. What I am going to ask is that when the war terminates the National Insurance Fund shall not, as on the last occasion, have to accept the obligations which arose when the men came home after being demobilised. They were given a month's payment and in many cases it was a charge upon the Insurance Fund. The result was—and this is the seriousness of the matter—that, as I am convinced, the benefits of the restricted number of insured contributors who had been paying in from 1912 to 1920 were affected. They had to shoulder the burden of the serious state of affairs which existed after the last War, whereas it should have been a charge upon the whole of the State. My first point is that the Minister ought to give us an undertaking that if we are again faced with a similar set of circumstances the Fund shall not have to bear the cost, but that it shall become a responsibility of the Exchequer—that the maximum amount of benefit shall be paid and that it shall be a State charge, irrespective of the Fund.
The next point upon which I want an assurance concerns elderly men. Some of my hon. Friends and I are associated with a number of elderly men who have been skilled in their particular trades but, owing to becoming affected physically— through worsening eyesight, for example

have not been able to hold their own under modern conditions, with its piecework systems and the like. Those men have had their confidence undermined and have not been able to hold their own in industry. At the same time we find that trainees are being brought into industry from Government factories. I am the first to admit that under the conditions we are now living in we want the maximum effort from everybody, but we also want to give encouragement to these elderly men. They ought not to have to go to Employment Exchanges or to sit at home week after week while these young men are going into their industry from the training schools. I ask an assurance from the Minister that men who have been skilled in a particular trade shall be given a chance. I have in mind a driller. His employers admit that before his eyesight started to decline he was a tip-top workman. He ought to be found some less skilled work in his industry, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) suggests, be employed upon some less accurate work. These elderly men ought now to have an opportunity of serving in any capacity in which they can be of use.
There is another point which I consider very important. In war time the tendency will be to say of workpeople," Oh, they ought to be working; they ought to get a job." It is all right for those who have never been in the position in which some workpeople find themselves to talk like that. Already the pottery industry, parts of the cotton industry and one or two other sections of industry are seriously affected by wartime conditions. The people in those industries are as patriotic as any other section of the community, and when they find themselves unemployed owing to war conditions they ought not to be taunted by people who do not know their circumstances if they do not get another job. I can see danger in this Bill unless we have safeguards for their benefits and conditions, because of the atmosphere that can be created, as we saw in the case of the Anomalies Act. Therefore I want an assurance that if workpeople find themselves unemployed through circumstances over which they have no control, that their conditions and benefits—I realise that benefits are not dealt with


under the Bill but their conditions—will not be adversely affected by the Bill.

The Chairman: I must call the hon. Member's attention to something which he himself said just now. Some part of the subject with which he has been dealing does not come under this Bill at all.

Mr. Smith: I would like to explain that Clause I deals with a variety of questions, and I have had to be very careful to keep within the bounds of order, but it is provided that the Minister may issue regulations, and what I ask is that before he does so he should bear in mind what I have said.

The Chairman: I am not complaining of the hon. Member, but I was bound to take notice of his remarks, because I may have to stop later speakers.

4.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I think I can set at rest very speedily the fears of the hon. Member with regard to any possible change of Minister in the future. As he knows, the rates of benefit and certain other provisions of the principal Act cannot be adjusted without recourse to Parliament. In regard to the period of benefit the intention would be to make only those adjustments and no more which were rendered necessary. As regards the experience of the last War, he will remember that there were then some 2,000,000 insured workers in the country. To-day there are some 15,000,000. In so far as insured men will come back again at the end of the war they will be returning to insured occupations and will not for the first time follow such occupations. In so far as they are still interested in insurance, their contributions as insured workers will meanwhile be kept up to date. As to the third point about elderly men, we shall not lose sight of the matter. It may be that one of the happier features of these grievous times will be the reabsorption of these people into insurable employment.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Foot: Yesterday on the Second Reading I ventured to ask the Minister of Labour for an assurance on some of the points in which I am interested, and in particular on the question of the duration of benefit and that there should be

no cutting down of the duration of the time during which a man was entitled to benefit. The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance and said there was no question of cutting down the 26 weeks—if I understood him correctly. He said that there might be some difficulty in a case in which a man had an exceptionally good employment record, and therefore was entitled to a rather longer period of benefit than 26 weeks. I was a little disturbed by that. There must be many cases of this kind. Obviously men with an exceptionally good record are likely to be in insurance certainly for the next few months, and I hope that in such cases the Minister will preserve the right of those people.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance of this kind. It is our intention that the minimum period under both the general and the agricultural scheme should be extended. This will cover all cases likely to arise.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE(EMERGENCY POWERS) [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Labour in case of war to extend the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, to additional classes of persons, and to modify or suspend any of the provisions of the said Act and to make provision for the payment of allowances in an emergency, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, out of moneys so provided.

Resolution agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE(EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1 (Power of Minister of Labour to make regulations extending Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, to persons distressed a result of war, and modifying or suspending any provision of that Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.25p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I suggested yesterday that I might have an assurance from the Minister in regard to the position of small business men who are not their own employers and who might in the present condition find their employment no longer available. If I could have such an assurance I know it would give much comfort to these people.

4.26p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: Municipalities have for many years had a rota, and when they have undertaken large capital developments their contractors have had to give an undertaking to take a certain percentage of local labour which had been unemployed for a fair time. We are reaching a situation now in which many firms will benefit from State orders, and I would like the Minister to give an undertaking that, within reason, such firms should undertake that a certain number of men who have been receiving public assistance should be taken on in order that the long spell of unemployment might be broken. I know of nothing worse than the despondency which appears upon the faces of some of those who have been unemployed for a considerable time, but no matter how badly off these people are they are better off than men in a certain country where the problems of unemployment have been solved. We are now trying to pull the whole country together, and in order that these men might play their part I am asking that their records should be considered. Instead of having the feeling that the nation has no use for their services, they should be given an opportunity by the firms who are benefiting by State orders, as is the case with the municipalities.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give the assurance asked from me by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). As to the question just asked by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), the normal work of the exchanges will go on,

with greatly increased opportunity for finding employment, and I can assure the hon. Member that those long out of work will not be forgotten. There may perhaps be opportunities under future legislation to see that their claims are preferentially considered.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am more concerned about the instructions which the Minister will give out than about the powers which he has. My difficulty in dealing with these matters is not the power given to him under the Unemployment Assistance Act as it now stands, but the fact that those who are administering this matter tend to transfer all the cases they can to the public assistance committees. In the circumstances, when the Minister is sending out instructions, I hope that they will be definite and distinct. This legislation has proved the necessity for an extension of the classes of individuals covered by the powers possessed by the Minister, and this is no time for the public assistance committees and the Unemployment Assistance Board to scrap with each other as to which of them is responsible for relieving the distress of certain individuals. For the edification of the Committee I would say that that kind of thing has been going on for a long time and that it is not pleasant to have to attempt to settle disputes between them. The Minister's intentions may be good, but they can all be frustrated by the way in which the regulations are carried out.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: In one sentence I wish to reinforce the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). Up to the present time, very substantial contracts have been placed, but we find a policy of excluding the men with the longer periods of unemployment and men of 55 years of age and upwards. If I rightly understood what the Parliamentary Secretary said, it was that no change would be made in the practice which has been carried on for a long time, and that the additional labour that would now accrue in consequence of so many men going into the Army would be relied on. I suggest that that is all wrong, and that there ought to be a definite undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary that in future people carrying on these works shall employ their fair


share of those men who have been unemployed for a long time and who are about 50 to 55 years of age. Unfortunately, there has been a definite policy adopted by many employers of excluding that kind of men. Here is an opportunity to bring almost every person of that kind back into employment, to take him off unemployment assistance and public assistance and to give him the right to earn his living. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a little better undertaking than the one he has given. If he does so, it will be a matter of great satisfaction to the people concerned and to public assistance committees.

The Chairman: I do not profess to be fully acquainted with all these Bills, but I do not think the hon. Member's point is one on which that assurance could be given on this Clause.

Mr. E. Smith: I would point out, Sir Dennis, that this Bill is stated, in Clause 1, to be for the purpose of preventing or relieving distress. Our point is that distress can be relieved by giving these men employment. Some municipalities have been subject to a great deal of criticism because they have employed a number of these men, and it has been said that it is not a business proposition to employ them.

The Chairman: I quite see the hon. Member's point, but, as I said, I do not think it is one which could be dealt with under this Bill.

Mr. Jenkins: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to take advantage of your Ruling, Sir Dennis. The object of this Bill is to prevent or relieve distress, and that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With your permission, Sir Dennis, I can assure the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) that every effort will be made to assist those people who have suffered grievously in this way.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION [Money].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of a national register and for the issue of identity cards it is expedient to authorise—
(a)The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act, and
(b)The payment into the Exchequer of all fees received under regulations made under the said Act with respect to identity, cards."

Resolution agreed to.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1 (Establishment of National Register.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.35p.m.

Mr. Gledhill: Is it the intention that when this Bill is passed, those people who are over military age need not regard themselves as being liable for any work until they are called upon? There are many people who are over military age who want to do something, and I should like to know what is the intention.

4.36p.m.

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, that is not an accurate statement of our intention. The object of this Bill is to ascertain the manpower and woman-power of this country and the manner in which it could be best used. Under the Military Service Act, which this House passed, it is quite clearly the intention of the Government to proceed in an ordered way with the calling up of men for the armed services of the Crown, but when this Bill is passed the position will not be that everyone may sit still and wait until he is notified for service, either with the armed Forces or in some other form. Citizens should continue to exercise that initiative which has been so strikingly shown up to the present.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2— (Duties of Registrar-General.)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.37 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I want to make a suggestion with a view to improving the efficacy of national registration. The Clause says that the Registrar-General is
for that purpose to make arrangements for the preparation and issue of the necessary forms and instructions and for the collection or reception of forms when filled in.
My suggestion, which arises out of our experience in the trade union movement, would involve a little additional work, but I think that additional work would be well repaid. In 1922 my union was involved in a six months' lockout, and in 1927 and in 1930 we went through a great slump. The result was that there were thousands of highly-skilled engineers and others in this country who were forced into small businesses, insurance work, and other callings. I suggest that when the Registrar is preparing his forms, instead of providing for only one answer to the question about a person's occupation, he should ask for at least two—the occupation of the person at the present time and any occupation in which the person may be skilled. We want to organise the manhood and womanhood of this country in such a way as to obtain the best possible results. I am convinced that there is a great reservoir of skilled and semi-skilled labour available, and we ought to have a record of it, so that it may be tapped when the emergency demands. For instance, I have a friend who is a professional footballer, but who is also a draughtsman. When his registration is taken, the probability is that he would describe himself as "professional footballer." This is only giving a concrete example of the need for at least two answers to be given. Anyone who follows the daily newspapers will see advertisements for draughtsmen, and we ought to be bringing these men out from the different ways in which they are obtaining their livelihood in order that they can be put to employment to suit the nation's demands better than at present.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: There is certainly no shortage of skilled labour at the moment. It is true that between 1920 and 1922, because of the conditions that prevailed in the engineering industry, when the wages of highly skilled engineers were reduced below the level of many scavengers, some of the best engineers cleared out altogether. There were drivers and conduc-

tors of trams and buses who got higher wages at those occupations than they did as skilled engineers. Our idea now is that we may be able to reach those people and find out whether they are skilled in any other occupation than that which they perform at present so that the nation may get the best results possible. It has been stated in this House time and again by persons in responsible positions that there was a shortage of skilled engineers, and to make that statement at the time it was made, in 1934, was advertising to our enemies something which was not true. It appeared on the face of things that there was a shortage of skilled engineers, but the powers-that-be know perfectly well that we have more skilled engineers than any two Powers put together. This is a proposal to get them registered so that we may know where our skilled men are, and I hope the Minister will pay attention to our request.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: There is more in this than I thought at first. We know of people who, through stress of circumstances, have had to take other occupations and cannot revert to their original occupations. A man who has to fill up his record may think that he must put his latest occupation which is not the one at which he is best. If there are any means by which you can get fuller information, it will be useful for the State and it will give a certain satisfaction to the man himself to think that there is some chance of getting back to his original occupation. If a method could be devised, without overloading the statement, it would be a very wise suggestion for the Minister to examine and see whether something can be done.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I will certainly examine it and see what can be done in that direction. The form will be left at the man's house and it can be studied until the census officer comes to collect it, and it is possible for the man to discuss with him anything that he has set down. I hope it will not be taken in the country that a. skilled engineer is debarred from offering his services merely because he has not entered himself as such in some census or other. I am sure that the initiative which has been a very marked feature of the present crisis will continue, and that a man who is both a professional


footballer and a skilled draughtsman will not wait until he has entered both on the national register and then been called up but will consider for himself whether there is an opportunity of using the skill that the country more greatly needs, and will offer that skill without necessarily going through the machinery of registration and subsequent calling up.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am wondering what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind in opposing this idea.

Mr. Elliot: I am not opposing the idea. I said definitely that I would examine it and I said I hoped they would not wait till they were called up, because that might not be the way that the opportunity would arise. I hope very much that the hon. Member will not find it necessary to pursue his argument on the line that I have opposed the idea.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: We have done a lot of registering in recent years and surely we ought to be able to learn from our experience. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity for initiative, but the very registration that he spoke about, which ought to create initiative, has, on the part of Government Departments definitely and distinctly to my own knowledge been responsible for preventing that initiative being used. What my hon. Friend has said is perfectly true, that a man who is recorded at an Employment Exchange has been refused time and time again within the last six months an opportunity to exercise the skill that he has learned previously because he is registered in the job that he is at present following. We ought not to lose sight of the experience that has been gained as a result of registering. I am not opposed to registering as registration, but 1 want it to be useful, and I cannot see any purpose in building up a register unless it is to be used to the best advantage. We can, if we are not careful, prevent a person doing the very thing he wants to do, which will be most beneficial to the nation.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Although the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the suggestion in general terms, he gave us no idea how he is going to get it carried out. I should like him to tell us in rather more than

the few words that he used what he has in his mind. He said the form would be left at the house for a week and could be discussed. Has he got it in mind to give instructions to those who take the census to bear this point in mind and definitely ask whether a man has had previous occupation and make arrangements that he should definitely enter into it?

4.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: We are very much concerned about this. We find that, when a man is once classified in a particular occupation, he has great difficulty in getting out of it. All we are asking is that, instead of there being one column, there should be two, so that a person can insert what he is engaged on at present, but there should be an alternative so that he could say, "I can do so-and-so" and those responsible for compiling this can say, "We have so many people engaged in so-and-so but if you want to call upon them for other services you can ask that they shall be employed in those services.''

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Denville: I should like to support the suggestion made by hon. Members. I cannot for the life of me see what objection there can be to asking a man what alternative service he could offer to the State. I have in mind dozens of cases of men who are to-day in occupations which they had taken through the force of circumstances, and which they would willingly give up in order to go back to their own occupations in a time of national emergency like the present. There are many thousands of people in the entertainment industry who came out of certain industries and entered occupations in picture houses, theatres and music-halls of this country. I have in mind a personal friend who came to me the other day and said, "I should like to offer my services." I said to him jocularly, "You are no good. You are a common or garden comedian and no good to anybody. "And his reply was," I am a first-rate draughtsman." Is such a man to put on his registration paper, "comedian," "actor," "picture-house attendant," "cinematograph operator,'' "scenic artist "or" wardrobe maker," or anything of that sort, when he might put down a trade which might be of great benefit to the country at the present moment? I hope that the Minister will consider that it is very fair for the Committee to ask that every man and woman


should be given the chance of offering their services to the country in any capacity whatever at the present time.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Burke: May I ask the Minister to see to it that, if he puts down any alteranative question, it should not be made obligatory for an answer to be given? While it may be true that men have escaped from the mines—and I use the word "escaped" advisedly—to some other job, we do not want these men necessarily to be brought back into the mines. I see as much danger as advantage in the proposal. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister examines it, it will be done from the point of view that, while people may be asked to give any information about occupations for which they have been trained, it should be made perfectly clear that the answer to the question is not obligatory.

4.53 p.m.

Sir A. Wilson: I saw in a book, a psychological study, that in England about one man in 10 and one woman in six who are regularly employed have an alternative occupation for which they are competent and fairly well trained; so that this is a manageable proposition. In my own constituency, which has benefitted immensely from the vast transfer of men and women from the North to the South during the past 10 years, I reckon from a sound knowledge of them that about half of them are not following the occupations for which they were trained and habituated in early years. Nearly all of them have two thoroughly useful occupations, both of which are likely to be of national advantage. I therefore hope that the Minister will see his way to devise, with the Registrar-General, some form which will make duplicate registration possible.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Viant: There is much to be said for the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), and I want to make an Appeal to the Minister in this regard. If a further reply is to be given, it should be of an optional character. I know men associated with the building industry, which could employ a greater number than are available at the present time. During the period of the trade depres-

sion these men went in other occupations, and they are now doing tolerably well. If it is thought that the Government are seeking this information with the idea of imposing industrial conscription they will not get the replies, and it is only reasonable to expect that the men will not give replies. They have not been treated by the State in the past as they ought to have been, and so the Government need to be careful in regard to the manner in which they seek the information. It should be made optional for the individual to reply to the second question. I say definitely, in spite of the difficulties with which we might be confronted, that I would not be a party to anything in the form of industrial conscription. The best results will be obtained by voluntary effort in this regard. The information is needed at the present moment, but the introduction of anything that savours of industrial conscription will split the country from top to bottom. There is no doubt about that, and therefore, the Government must be careful, if they seek this extra information, that it must be of a voluntary character, and made optional whether the individual replies or not. The spirit in the country is good, and the trade union movement is behind the Government, but, as I have already said, anything that savours of industrial conscription will split the country from top to bottom.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) have shown that this matter is not as simple as might appear. I thought I had met the Committee when I said they would naturally desire that any information as to subsidiary occupation which individuals were willing to volunteer for should be collected if possible, but clearly it should not be a compulsory question. The offer which I made to the Committee does, I think, meet the sense of the Committee as expressed, not merely on one side, but on both sides of the Committee. There is a statutory question put down in the Schedule to which an answer must be given. Obviously we cannot alter that. But I shall certainly undertake either by broadcast or through the enumerators to make it clear that, if a person has other skill which he desires to offer, he should let it be known, but it will not be a


compulsory question. With that undertaking perhaps the Committee will be able to pass this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6 — (Identity cards.)

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out from "uniform," to "may," in line 24.
This Clause deals with the identity card which each person must have if the Bill becomes law, and for the purpose of having a check on the identity card Subsection (4) lays down who must be a person to challenge or demand the production of this card. First of all, it says a constable in uniform. We do not object to that, because we have great respect for a policeman in uniform and recognise his authority. It goes on to say:
or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations.
That at once raises doubt in our minds as who this class of person will be. Will the challenge in regard to the identity cards be made in the street or at the home? That is a point on which we want to be quite clear. Let me give an instance of what happened last night. We know that at practically every street corner men are stationed, wearing helmets, watching what is taking place. It almost appears as though we were under martial law for the time being. Last night when I was going up Kingsway a man in front of me stopped two young women and said: "Have you your gas masks? "I wondered what his intention was, because I did not know of any authority having been given to anybody to ask such a question. The man was not wearing a helmet. The two young women stopped, and after having apparently decided that it was a bit of bluff, they passed on. That incident made me think that we must be careful not to give authority to persons who are not recognised. If we do so, there will be a state of consternation as to the right of challenge.
In Sub-section (4) it might appear that the power of challenge can be put into the hands of persons not in uniform. One wonders whether that will be so. If the challenge is to be exercised by persons not in authority, there may be many

scenes. I should not like anyone to stop me and challenge me. I should question whether he had the right to do so, and there would probably be trouble for the man if he had not the right. If, however, a constable stopped me I should recognise at once that he had authority, and I should do what I could to meet his demands. I should like to know exactly what the Sub-section means, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clear our minds on the subject. If it should be necessary for anyone except a constable to have the authority to challenge, I want the authority to be narrowed down as much as possible, and that the person authorised should at once be able to prove his right to make the challenge. I should like to know definitely where the challenge can be made. I should prefer that it be made in the home. Otherwise, difficulty may be created, and there may be antagonism created in the minds of the people, although they are ready to help the Government in regard to the matter.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for giving me the opportunity of making this matter clear. Whilst we have in mind the constable in uniform, we want to go a little further. The local registration officer ought also to have the power. I am anxious to ensure that no unauthorised person shall be enabled to ask for the card, and therefore I am willing to move a manuscript Amendment which will, I think, go a long way to meet the point. The words of the Clause are "if unable to produce." I, propose to amend that so that it will read "fails to produce." That would mean that if anybody challenges a, person to produce a card he would not necessarily have to produce the card there and then. He would be able to produce it at a time and place to be laid down in the regulations. In the regulations it will be laid down that he shall have 48 hours in which to produce the card at the appointed place. If the demand had been made by a constable in uniform, the person would have to produce it at a police station in regard to which there could be no misunderstanding. If the demand had been made by a registration officer, the card would have to be produced at the office of that officer. It is,


however, impossible to put all these things in the Bill itself. For instance, it might be necessary for an embarkation officer to be authorised to have the card produced at a dock. We shall make it clear that when the challenge is made, whether by a person in uniform or a registration officer, there will be two clear days in which to produce the card at a recognised place.

Mr. Price: Would special constables have the power to challenge?

Mr. Elliot: I should think so. If any constable in uniform asks for the card, the person will still have the alternative of presenting it within the next two days at the police station.

Mr. Tinker: The answer is quite satisfactory, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 27 leave out '' is unable," and insert, "fails" — [Mr. Elliot.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. Wilson: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us whether it is proposed to add an index number to each identity card. It would greatly increase the efficiency of this national registration if every person on his card has a distinctive index letter and number.

Mr. Elliot: I dealt with that matter yesterday. For index there will be four letters like A, B, C and D, and two numbers like 12. That will give complete identification to each individual in 46,000,000 people.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: While I am not anxious to oppose the Clause, I would ask that its administration should be carried out with some leniency. As I indicated in commenting upon a Bill that we passed yesterday, the British people have never taken very kindly to registration of any particular kind, and it seems to me that the provision with regard to the keeping of the identity card and the penalties which will follow if it happens to be lost, will need to be administered — I was going to say in a Christian spirit. I am afraid that it is a little bit out of

harmony with the times to talk about the Christian spirit, except when we are dealing with our own people. Those of us who have had experience of the working of the National Health Insurance Act know how easy it is for a card if it is not constantly required, to be misplaced, and for more than 48 hours, without any intention to deceive. The penal Clauses. of the Bill are evidently put there for the purpose of dealing with the individual who is intending to deceive, either by withholding information or utilising the provisions that are made in a detrimental way.

Mr. Elliot: Perhaps it will save time if I say that there is an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the penal Clauses, considerably reducing the penalties, and I am willing to accept that Amendment.

Mr. Tomlinson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That will cut short my speech. I should, however, like to know who will be responsible for the loss of a card that belongs to an evacuee. The national register will be taken and the identity card will be made out. I happen to have in my home at the present time five individuals all of whom are of different names. Who is to be responsible for the card of the child who has come to the household for a period? Is it the responsibility of the mother or the father in the house? Am I responsible for the card of a child in my home for a period? The knowledge we are requiring is for a given purpose, and I should like to see the penalties in regard to a child under age cut out altogether. I have a grown-up daughter and for the first time for two years she required to visit the doctor, but neither the doctor, myself nor her mother could find her medical card. She could not have presented the card to a police officer within 48 hours, and if it had happened to have been an identity card somebody would have been liable for something. Our people do not take kindly to the penalisation of mistakes which are genuine or due to a little carelessness. I plead that there should be a moratorium for 12 months so far as penalties are concerned, in order that our people may become accustomed to be known by a registered card.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Offences and penalties.)

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, at the end, to insert:
"(i) in the case of an offence under Subsection (3) of this Section, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and
(ii) in the case of any other offence.—
I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment. It has been pointed out that the offences under this Bill differ widely in their variety. No doubt heavy penalties should be provided where you have a case of deliberate forgery of an identity card, but it seems to some of us that the penalties in the Bill, going up to two years imprisonment, are altogether out of proportion in the case of someone who merely fails to give an answer to a policeman or to observe some regulation. I am proposing that for these minor offences the penalties should be limited to a month's imprisonment or a fine of five pounds, or both imprisonment and fine. I want to thank the Minister for accepting the Amendment, and as I do not suppose I shall be speaking again on these proceedings I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he may be coupled with another great Conservative leader whose slogan was "register, register."

Mr. Elliot: I propose to ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Silverman: I hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). If he would put in the words "if any person fails without reasonable cause," I think it would meet the case, and they could be put in without weakening the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Elliot: I think it is best to leave the matter to the discretion of the courts. If we put in the words "without reasonable cause, "they might actually have a contrary effect to that which we desire.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: While thanking the Minister for accepting the Amendment to this Clause I am anxious to prevent, if I can, the Bill, which is clearly an emergency Bill, being utilised in the courts for what I call the purpose of collecting money in fines. The Bill may be necessary for the prosecution of the war. It may be that there is a necessity for compiling a register, but here you have the possibility of people being stopped and asked whether they have or have not lost their cards. You may challenge a dozen people and you may find one who has committed an offence. It will not help a scrap to win the war, but there is the possibility of penalising somebody who is perfectly innocent because we have passed a law for another purpose entirely. If there was some way in which the spirit of the Bill could be maintained, then what I am thinking about could not happen. If the spirit behind the Bill is carried forward into the law courts, what I am suggesting could not possibly occur. I am not suggesting that it will happen, but it can and may. The police can buttonhole 20 individuals and ask them to produce their identity cards, and it may be possible to collect for the State as a consequence, and due to the carelessness of individuals, a certain amount of money.
It is not going to be easy to pay for the war and I hope we are not going to pay for it in that way. I have had two years' experience as a magistrate. I do not want to cast any reflections, but I have been a party on more than one occasion to fining motorists who in my judgment have been subject to something similar to what I am suggesting might happen in the case of identity cards. I do not want what has happened to motorists to be extended to the people of this country. Jokes may appear out of order, but I will illustrate my point by a joke. We used to have a button club in our district, and the idea was that every member of the club should always carry his button with him. If he could not produce it when challenged by another member it cost him 3d., which went towards a picnic. Some members made a practice of asking other members "Where is your button?" In nine cases out of 10 they had their button, but if the tenth one had not it cost him 3d. That principle applied to the population of this country is


possible under this Bill. The power to do it is there, but it should not be used and I am asking that it should not be used. I do not know any way by which the spirit of the words of an Act of Parliament can be carried forward into the courts, but it is because of the experience I have had in connection with words in another Act of Parliament that I am concerned about this matter.
Some years ago an Act was passed which, among other things, set out to define what was a cop, tube or bobbin. Those who were responsible for the Bill when it was passing through the House thought they knew what was meant. There was no intention to penalise anybody, but it cost us £850 to get a definition, and that definition was entirely different from what had been intended by the House. I do not want that sort of thing to happen in this case. The powers are there, and I do not want to have to come to the House and protest against the way in which such powers are being used. I do not oppose the Clause, but I appeal that instructions should be given to the police with regard to these identity cards, so that innocent people will not be pestered.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I should like briefly to reinforce the appeals that have been made to the Minister that some such words as "without reasonable excuse" should be inserted. It is not always easy to get into the administration of justice the spirit which the Minister is now showing. There are many very good police officials in control of prosecutions who are a little apt to say, "An offence has been committed, and, therefore, it must come before the court." It is a little easy, in times of panic especially, for magistrates rather to run away with themselves and to inflict penalties because an offence has been committed. I suggest for the consideration of the Minister some such words as "without reasonable excuse," or "without reasonable excuse shown." Such an Amendment could be made on the Report stage. If this were done, it would mean that in any case where there really was a proper reason for prosecution, the person would never be able to escape, because there would be on him the burden of proof and he would have to show reasonable excuse; but it would

also have the effect that if some police officer said, "This person may be perfectly innocent, but we really do want to give some notice to the people in this district to be a little more careful," the solicitor on that side would say, "You had better not do it in this particular case, because in this case the man has honestly lost his card, and if you try to get an example out of it, it will be the wrong way round, because the magistrates will be compelled to acquit him."

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw the attention of the Minister to what can easily happen if this provision is operated without amendment. If the Minister has read the newspapers to-day, he will have seen a report of a case before a bench of magistrates where the person who was responsible for bringing the case adopted an attitude of the most rigid character and the chairman of the bench had to say to him, "We will decide what is to be done; you will not decide." That person insisted that the letter, and not the spirit, of the law should be carried out, whereas the chairman of the bench wanted to operate the spirit as well as the letter of the law. There is always that danger. During the last War, in some districts there was an entirely different spirit adopted with regard to certain offences arising out of the emergency legislation from that which prevailed in other districts. We want above everything else to avoid any possibility of causing a situation in which anybody, without taking into consideration the spirit and conditions in which this legislation is passed, simply demands that the letter of the law shall be applied. There is another matter to which I want to refer. If a fine is imposed under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will the instalment system in Scotland apply to such a fine? I was very much struck by the remarks of my hon. Friend who said that this Bill could be made a means of collecting money to assist in the conduct of the war. In Scotland we have a very fine system for causing a very widespread collection of fines from the population. Fines can be paid by instalments in Scotland; does that system apply in this case?

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: In reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I can give an assurance that if the instal-


ment system applies generally in Scotland, it would apply to fines under this Bill. As regards the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) about the spirit in which the Bill can be interpreted, I would ask them to note that in amending "is unable '' to "fails," I did not even require that a reasonable excuse should be tendered. I did not speak of a man who failed without reasonable excuse; I referred to anybody who failed; that is to say, a constable cannot say, "Have you a reasonable excuse?" but merely, "Have you an identity card?" If the person has not, the constable has no right to challenge him as to whether or not he has left it at home. If the provision were amended to read, "fails without reasonable excuse," it would put into the law something which I have withdrawn from it by my amendment. It is my intention that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be administered in a reasonable spirit, and I shall do my best in the regulations to see that the requirements are such as can be reasonably asked of citizens in admittedly difficult times.

Mr. Silverman: I think that the Minister has not quite grasped the point we are making. The question does not arise at the point where the officer asks for the card, but at the point where the offence is committed. Sub-section (3) states:
If any person fails to comply with any requirement duly made under this Act …

Mr. Elliot: That is a general power. The particular instance which I gave was merely an instance of the spirit in which I was trying to meet the Committee. I think the words "fails to comply" in that Sub-section may be read as the hon. Member has mentioned, but I do not wish to put in qualifying words, because honestly I think that discretion in these matters must be left to the courts. If a person fails to comply, then the court may impose certain penalties—

Mr. Silverman: Must.

Mr. Elliot: The amount of the penalty is left to the discretion of the court. 5.29 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I still think that the point has not been met. As far as the

spirit of the administration is concerned, I think everybody will agree that what the right hon. Gentleman has said goes all the way, but what those who criticise the Sub-section have in mind is that it ought not to be an offence merely to fail to comply with something when you have a reasonable excuse for that failure. The Clause leaves no discretion to the courts as to the conviction. If someone has been told to produce a card at the nearest police station within 48 hours and fails to do so, then the offence has been committed and the court has no discretion except to say what penalty, if any, is to be imposed. The court could do nothing but record the conviction and impose some penalty even if only a nominal one. We suggest that where the onus of showing that there is reasonable excuse has been discharged, the court ought not to be compelled to record a conviction.

Mr. Beechman: Would the Minister consider adopting words such as "neglect to produce"?

The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is now dealing with a matter which has already been dealt with.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am particularly anxious about the power that is being given in this Clause and I would put this question to the Minister. If a house is blown up in an air raid and all the identity cards in that house are destroyed and if an individual ordinarily resident in that house, who was not there at the time of the air raid, was challenged on the following day by a police officer to produce his identity card, is there power to summon that individual and record a conviction against him? If so, it may be law but is it common sense?

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: There are innumerable dilemmas in which one might be placed as a result of enemy action of the kind just indicated by the hon. Member. For instance in such circumstances the housing regulations could not be complied with; but does the hon. Member suggest that it is likely that a housing inspector would go round after an air raid and say, "The overcrowding regulations are being contravened here because in this house which formerly had one person to a room there are nine persons in one room. Therefore,


I will bring you before the court and convict you, because the overcrowding statute remains the law of the land"? Innumerable other cases of that kind could be imagined. Nobody must live in a house which has not a proper water supply and proper arrangements for storing food and, in all those respects, it might be said, after air-raid damage, that an offence was being committed. But does anybody imagine that after an air raid, police officers will go round the town taking up everybody whom they find living under conditions which do not comply with any of these statutes, or that it would be possible to get convictions in such cases? Similarly, if, in those circumstances, they went about demanding that people should produce identity cards, which in the nature of things could not be produced, can anyone imagine any court entertaining a prosecution brought on such grounds? Can we imagine any constable doing such a thing? We must assume that in exceptional circumstances these statutes and the old statutes as well, will be administered reasonably and with discretion.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY [Money].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to impose penalties for trading with the enemy, to make provision as respects the property of the enemy and enemy subjects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board of Trade, and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any fees received by any custodian of enemy property appointed under the said Act and of any commission retained by a clearing office by virtue of the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties for trading with the enemy.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a person who was a Czech subject when he came to this country, say six months or more ago, will be regarded under this Bill as an enemy alien, because, since that time, the Germans have invaded Czecho-Slovakia and the people in that country are technically regarded as German citizens?

5.37.p m.

Mr. E. Smith: Sub-section (2) of this Clause contains these words:
supplied any goods to or for the benefit of an enemy, or obtained any goods from an enemy, or traded in, or carried, any goods consigned to or from an enemy or destined for or coming from enemy territory.
I am concerned particularly with the words "destined for." Is the Minister satisfied with the powers which are given to him by the Bill in this respect? If he is, can he give an assurance that all possible steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of what occurred during the last War? I will give two illustrations. It is well-known in this country— and a good deal of criticism has been levelled against those in power who were responsible for it during the last War—that we provided material which was used in the building of the Hindenburg line. I was one of those who had special training in the Tank Corps to enable us to deal with that line and much to our surprise we found later that a big percentage of the cement which was used in the building of that line had found its way from this country through neutral countries, to the Germans. I ask that under no consideration, should anything be done which will enable any firm or any individual to be a party to that kind of thing again.
My second illustration is this. After the War, when I was in the Army of Occupation, I went through a large mill


in a place called Duren and I became very friendly with the manager. He brought out of a cupboard a quantity of the finest stationery I have ever seen. on this stationery was printed in gold and red letters, the words "Knight of the Garter." Someone in this country who had a Knighthood of the Garter had been ordering that stationery during the War and it had been coming from Germany through neutral countries and in boats across the North Sea and had found its way to Britain. In addition to that, I also had experiences which enabled me to see that certain cargoes left these shores which were, on the face of them, ordinary cargoes, but which were being shipped to neutral countries, but under a top layer of cargo was other cargo that was being sent through those neutral countries into Germany. Therefore, the House can understand my anxiety, when we are faced with a situation in which we are going to fight for our lives and which I believe this nation will pull through, that we should have an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he will take all possible steps to prevent a repetition of what occurred during the last War.

5.41 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): To reply, first of all, to the question put by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who raised this point yesterday, I have looked into the matter as far as I could, and I am afraid, as the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) will, I think, agree, that it is not really a question on which one can give a general reply. It must depend, according to my advice, upon the circumstances of each case. There are such questions as that of the conditions under which a Czech who was left inside Czecho-Slovakia acquired German citizenship, and, therefore, it is, I am afraid, impossible to give a general reply. But I would like to repeat the assurance that I gave to the House last night, that even if it is necessary technically to regard a man who formerly held Czech nationality as now an enemy subject, it does not mean that automatically such a man has to be treated as an enemy for the purpose of this Measure.
With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), I am quite satisfied that the

powers given to me under this Bill are adequate, but he will realise that we are dealing here with only one branch of the sort of difficulties to which he referred, and that this Bill, unless it was reinforced by the powers that I already have—for instance, for the control of exports in general, and the powers and functions of the new Ministry of Economic Warfare—would by itself probably not be adequate. This Bill is intended to prevent a transaction with the enemy. The other sort of powers are intended to prevent, if there has been a perfectly genuine transaction with a neutral, that neutral passing the goods on to the enemy. It is to meet that kind of situation that we have other powers besides those given in this Bill.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I think I may say, humbly, that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he said about the different circumstances under which persons might remain or cease to be Czechs. It is always worth while remembering that under the Common Law of England, which, I understand, is faithfully followed in this Measure, an ordinary resident of this country is not an enemy at all, and, therefore, that Czechs in this country are not affected by the Bill. With regard to the question of the difficulty of passing things from neutral countries into enemy countries, one of the very few things outside the law that I know anything about is the manner in which the blockade in this country was exercised in the later stages particularly of the late war, which was magnificent. If conditions in this war are anything like those which prevailed during the late war, there will be very little to complain about.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.— (Transfer of negotiable instruments and choses in action by enemies.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Foot: I put a question yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman arising under this Clause, and he was good enough to say that he would look at the point. Has he had time to do so?

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member asked whether this could be confined to assignments made after the outbreak of war. That is the case; this is confined to the kind of assignments made since the outbreak of war.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Collection of enemy debts and custody of enemy property.)

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(7) All fees received by any custodian by virtue of an order under this Section shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.''
These are words which appear in the Bill in italics.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.— (Provisions with respect to money payable to, or received by, a Clearing Office under 24and 25 Geo. 5. c. 31.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 18, after "fit" insert:
and the amount of any commission so retained by a Clearing Office shall be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.".— [Mr. Stanley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11. — (Expenses of, and exercise of powers by, Board of Trade.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 1, at the beginning, insert:
The expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act by the Board of Trade shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament." — [Mr. Stanley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15. — (Interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I raised a point yesterday in regard to a definition, but there is one

other question that I would like to ask on this Clause. In Sub-section (1, a) occur the words:
an individual who, not being either a British subject or a British protected person.
There does not appear to be in the Bill any definition of the words "British protected person," and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could give some indication of what is intended to be conveyed by those words.

Mr. Stanley: It is a phrase that I have seen in a number of Acts of Parliament. I think it may probably come under the Interpretation Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND).

5.50 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move,
''That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, with regard to leave of absence to salaried sheriffs-substitute.
Under the existing law the only case in which it is possible to replace a sheriff-substitute by an interim sheriff-substitute is when the sheriff-substitute is incapacitated by ill-health. During the last War the powers of the law were expanded so as to enable an interim appointment to be made if the sheriff-substitute was engaged on military service or some other form of national service for which the sheriff-substitute might be specially qualified. The powers in the 1914 Act were allowed to expire. I think the House will agree that in the circumstances in which we are now unfortunately situated the old necessity arises again with special emphasis.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Wedderburn.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the provisions of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, with regard to leave of absence to salaried sheriffs-


substitute ", presented accordingly; read the First time, and ordered to be printed. — [Bill 260.]

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

INCOME TAX PROCEDURE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS).

5.53 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move,
That leave be give a to bring in a Bill to make temporary provision for the performance by other Commissioners or persons of any functions of the General Commissioners, the Additional Commissioners, or the Assessor for any division, area or parish.
This Bill is a matter of machinery and its effect is to allow during the war period such modifications, to such extent as may be necessary, of the strictly territorial basis of the division of functions which obtains under the existing Income Tax Acts. If these functions are not performed the machinery of Income Tax collection comes to an end, and it will be realised that from the point of view of the Exchequer, at any rate, that is a major calamity which we cannot possibly allow to occur. The method with which it is proposed to deal with the organisation under war conditions is as follows. The pivot of the organisation are the General Commissioners, but there is no particular way of providing substitutes for them in the event of their ceasing to function. Should it so happen that for some reason or other, either generally or in some area of the country, the General Commissioners cannot function for any length of time, it would have serious consequences from the Revenue point of view.
The method proposed is to deal with this matter by substitution. Under the existing law it is possible for the taxpayer under Schedule D to exercise an option and have appeals and cases heard by Special Commissioners instead of Local Commissioners. Also he may elect under Schedule D to be assessed by the Special Commissioners. Both of these options, however, are subject to a limit of time. The Bill proposes that the Special Commissioners would be available as possible substitutes freely in the whole field where now they can only be used after the exercise of an option.

Another substitution which the Bill envisages is to take the General Commissioners acting for another division as substitutes for the commissioners for that division who, in the circumstances anticipated, might not be able to act. Probably, however, the Special Commissioners would be more frequently used as they are a mobile tribunal and therefore no doubt would do the work more conveniently. The Bill adopts both lines of substitution; and whichever is selected in any given case the governing factors must be the forwarding of the King's business and consideration for the taxpayer's convenience. The other functions which the Bill considers are those of the assessor and the Additional Commissioners. They have certain statutory duties to perform and the Bill provides that each Inspector of Taxes shall be available in an emergency as the supplementary, or, in the last resort, as an alternative for carrying on these duties. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland because they have another system there.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The proposals in this Bill seem to us to be a sensible way of dealing with the situation and we offer no objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

INCOME TAX PROCEDURE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL,

''to make temporary provision for the performance by other Commissioners or persons of any functions of the General Commissioners, the Additional Commissioners, or the Assessor for any division, area or parish;"

presented accordingly; read the First time, and ordered to be printed. [Bill 261.] Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.— [Captain McEwen.]

GOVERNMENT AND OTHER STOCKS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS).

5.58 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make temporary provision for rendering inscribed stocks transferable by instrument in writing, and for extending, in certain


circumstances arising from war, the time limited by the National Debt Act, 1870, for the payment of coupons.
This is another machinery Measure and is designed to deal only with stock which is transferable by entry in the books or registers kept in Great Britain. The most important of these are British Government stocks held at the Bank of England and stocks held in a register under the Colonial Stock Act, 1877. Under the present law and practice there is a method of transfer which calls for the personal attendance of the transferor or someone authorised by him and known to the registrar of the Bank of England. It is common knowledge that certain branches of the Bank of England, including the Stock Transfer Department of the Bank of England, have removed to other parts of the country for the purpose of keeping the records safe and so forth. It would obviously be impossible in the new circumstances for transferors or even their nominees to go and do these transfers. The Bill provides that during the emergency any stock that is at present transferable in the books of the register kept in Great Britain shall not be transferable by that method, but instead by instrument in writing.
I should add one word on the payment of coupons, which is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. Under Section 35 of the National Debt Act, 1870, it is provided that coupons payable by the Bank of England shall be payable at the chief establishment of the bank at the expiration of three clear days, and at any branch establishment which is more than 10 miles away from the chief establishment, at the expiration of five clear days from the day of presentation. If leave is given to bring in the Bill we propose to insert a Clause to provide that if payment is impossible by war conditions within those very short periods the period may be extended; but we make it quite clear, by words definitely inserted in the Bill, that such an extension would be permissible only if it were necessary,
having regard to any interruption of communications or other physical conditions arising by reason of any war. …
The change is therefore entirely limited to physical communication difficulties. If the House is good enough to accept this Motion, I hope it will also let us have the Second Reading of the Bill.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: The Financial Secretary said that this is only a machinery Measure, but if I understand it correctly it is a very important machinery Measure, though I would qualify what I am intending to say with the statement that we have not had much opportunity of examining it, and consideration should be given to that fact. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary whether they consider this would be a suitable opportunity to make a statement on a particular point. The whole House will be aware that the ordinary people of this country in particular are very much concerned that we shall not have a repetition of the inflation which occurred in the last War. There was an inflationary period which affected the people of this country, and the State as a whole, very seriously, and the trade union movement expressed the view at the recent Trade Union Congress and other conferences that the Government ought to take steps to prevent any unnecessary inflation. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this will be a suitable occasion for him to make a statement on what steps the Government propose to take to deal with that question in order that public anxiety may be allayed.

Mr. Speaker: That would not be in order upon this Bill. Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make temporary provision for rendering inscribed stocks transferable by instrument in writing, and for extending, in certain circumstances arising from war, the time limited by the National Debt Act, 1870, for the payment of coupons.

put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

GOVERNMENT AND OTHER STOCKS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL Bill.

"to make temporary provision for rendering inscribed stocks transferable by instrument in writing, and for extending, in certain circumstances arising from war, the time limited by the National Debt Act, 1870, for the payment of coupons."

Presented accordingly, read the first time and ordered to be printed.— [Bill 262.]

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS).

6.5 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise issues and transfers from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom without the grant of credits by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and to suspend the necessity for the counter-signature by or on. behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to warrants authorising the issue of Treasury Bills.
I think that on this Motion for leave to bring in the Bill the House may be glad to have a short explanation of it, and I shall be prepared to leave it at that to-day and to take the Second Reading to-morrow. The matter is a technical one, but it touches upon a subject which is of very great general importance, the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I do not think that even in war time the House of Commons ought to —

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to —

Education (Scotland) War Service Superannuation Bill,

Teachers Superannuation (War Service) Bill,

Local Government Staffs (War Service) Bill,

Unemployment Insurance (Emergency Powers) Bill,

Unemployment Assistance (Emergency Powers) Bill,

National Registration Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to —

Trading with the Enemy Bill [Lords'], without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned —

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1.Navy and Marines (Wills) Act,1939.
2.Royal Marines Act, 1939.
3.Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939.
4.Military and Air Forces (Prolongation of Service) Act, 1939.
5.National Registration Act, 1939.
6.Unemployment Insurance (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939.

7.Unemployment Assistance (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939.
8.Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939.
9.Teachers Superannuation (War Service) Act, 1939.
10. Education (Scotland) (War Service) Superannuation Act, 1939.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS).

Question again proposed,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise issues and transfers from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom without the grant of credits by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and to suspend the necessity for the counter-signature by or on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to warrants authorising the issue of Treasury Bills.

Sir J. Simon: In moving for leave to introduce this Bill, I said that we did not wish to take the Second Reading to-day, as I think hon. Members who are interested in this subject may like to examine the Bill after the short explanation that I shall give. The Bill touches the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which are an extremely important element in our financial machine which is looked to, and rightly so, by the House of Commons, as a means by which irregularity in spending may be exposed and checked. Therefore, I do not take any alteration of these functions at all lightheartedly.
The basis of the present arrangement was the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, and successive Governments have always paid the very greatest attention to preserving these checks on our finances. The main and most important duty in this connection of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is, I suppose, to make a meticulous examination of our expenditure and to make the reports, which we know he does make, in which he calls attention to any slip or irregularity, even of the smallest kind. Members of the Public Accounts Committee and others know that this is very important in order that the authority given by Parliament for spending for particular purposes may be most strictly adhered to. We do not seek to interfere at all with this.
There is another function normally discharged by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, not by any means of equal importance, but none the less one which he discharges under Statute, and which we


think we must modify now. It is in regard to the credits —rather a curious word —which are necessary before the machinery for getting money from the Bank of England on the Treasury demand can operate, in order that that money may be paid by the Bank of England to the appropriate Department for spending. It is the provision of what is called a credit, which consists really in the Comptroller and Auditor-General informing the Bank that he has granted such credits. It is, therefore, in the nature of a preliminary process —the House votes that money should be spent up to such and such an amount for such and such a purpose —

Mr. E. Smith: So that could affect the issue I raised.

Sir J. Simon: Not quite, I think; but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire that that should be raised on an early occasion, when the large question may be discussed. I will bear that in mind. It is a very limited matter, but it is important. In the ordinary way the Treasury has to make a requisition upon the Comptroller and Auditor-General for credits to the amount which the Treasury is about to issue, and, in the ordinary way, the Bank of England cannot honour the Treasury's draft until the Comptroller and Auditor-General has informed the Bank that he has granted the credit. Nobody would seek to alter that procedure in ordinary circumstances. I myself would be against it being altered merely because we are at war. But I think the House will see that if events should occur in which, for example, the normal working of the Bank is interrupted and the department of the Bank concerned has to be moved to a different point, or if, on the other hand, the work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department is carried on at a different point and we have to make all these communications by messenger and in writing, without my elaborating the hypothesis anyone can see that a situation might arise which would prevent us from providing the finance necessary for the war. If hon. Members will look at Clause 3 of the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce, they will see that I wish to use this power only in the circumstances set out in Subsection (2) of that Clause. This is a limited provision, which I think ought

to satisfy the most careful guardian of the public purse in this House. It says:
This Act will come into operation on such date as His Majesty may appoint by an Order-in-Council declaring that the circumstances render it expedient in the public interest to put this Act into force, and shall continue in force until His Majesty by Order-in-Council directs that it shall cease to have effect.
What I desire is to get authority —and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, having examined the matter, is in agreement with me that we ought to get this authority —so that the paying out of public money for public purposes shall not be held up. If that happened there would be most serious dislocation of the financial machinery of the Government. So Clause 1 of this Bill —if it is approved —provides that, instead of having this machinery as in ordinary times, there may be, as long as these exceptional conditions exist, requisitions to the Bank by the Treasury to pay out to the Department a credit without the previous authority of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This, of course, does not in the least interfere with the main duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which is in the nature of an audit, after which if there is anything in the nature of an irregularity he must report it to the House of Commons. I think I have served the House fairly in explaining what we want.

Mr. Gallacher: Have you made any arrangements for the House of Commons sanctioning a credit after the money has been paid?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, that is what I meant by saying that the main duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General remains exactly as it was before, and the control of the House of Commons remains as it was.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arranged that this Bill should not be dealt with in precisely the summary way in which the other Bills that we have been discussing have been dealt with. In those cases it has been found convenient, for the purpose of facilitating the arrangements made by the Government in the emergency, that we should take Bills, through all stages in some cases, and in other cases through the introduction and Second Reading, in one day. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates the very great importance of this


Measure and has arranged only to introduce it to-day, and to have the Second Reading to-morrow. As to the importance of this Bill, I fully endorse, and will even go further than, the Chancellor's own remarks. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is a person of very great importance to this House. He is the servant of the House of Commons, and it is his business to be a watchdog for the House of Commons as against the Executive itself. But for the Comptroller and Auditor-General the Government could very largely set aside the deliberate and declared intentions of the House of Commons in matters of finance. Therefore, any tampering with the duties and rights of the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be, and in fact is, a very serious matter to the House of Commons.
It is of special importance that the House should have the opportunity of examining this Bill in a little more detail, and that it should not be asked to give its consent, even so far as the Second Reading is concerned, before reasonable time has elapsed. With regard to the merits of the Bill, I do not think it is necessary to deal with them at great length to-day. It will be for us tomorrow, if we find matters in it which require criticism, to make that criticism. But when the Chancellor of the 'Exchequer says, "Well, it is just a formal duty of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to give this instruction and his counter-signature, and the really important thing is his examination," I am not prepared to go as far as that.

Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman, I daresay unconsciously, misrepresented my words. I never used the word "formal" —still less with the intonation and the insinuation which he used. What 1 said was that if you take the two functions, the more important is the detailed examination every year. Far be it from me to say that the other is not important.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that interruption, because I think that what I stated was the impression he had given. I do not pretend either to have reproduced his words or his intonation, but he gave the impression that what was happening was of no great importance. I do not take that view. These two functions are really two sides of the same shield. They are parts of

the same function. One is to be asked to express an opinion before the credit is given at all, and the other is, after the credit has been given, to be convinced through an audit that the money has been spent in the way intended. Therefore I regard the two functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General as being really one function. The question, of course, arises whether in the particular circumstances of this emergency there are grounds for abrogating the first half of the function and whether any serious loss to the control of the House of Commons is involved in this abrogation.
A question was put to the Chancellor whether the sanction of the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be given afterwards. What I think was intended by the question was whether, although the sanction was not given in advance, within a few hours or a day or two afterwards it would be given in retrospect. That will not be done under the Bill. What will be done is that the procedure which is always followed, namely, a complete audit afterwards in the course of months, sometimes more than 12 months, will take place and the House of Commons through the Public Accounts Committee will be acquainted with the views of the Auditor-General on the matter. I quite agree that that is the more import-and half of the function, and that remains. I thought it my duty, in the short interval that I have had before the knowledge that this Bill was going to be introduced, to seek the opinion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, so that, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I could give his opinion on the matter. I am glad to confirm what the Chancellor said, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General sees no objection to this course in the very special circumstances and that it will not detract from his control, in the interest of the House of Commons, over expenditure. I think that is as much as I need say now. I am glad that we are to have a longer opportunity of examining the Bill and —I speak for those on these benches, and possibly for the members of the Public Accounts Committee —we have no objection to its introduction.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise issues and transfers from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom without the grant of credits by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and to suspend


the necessity for the counter-signature by or on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to warrants authorising the issue of Treasury Bills.

put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS(TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

''to authorise issues and transfers from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom without the grant of credits by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and to suspend the necessity for the counter-signature by or on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to warrants authorising the issue of Treasury Bills."

Presented accordingly, and read the First time.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]

CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT.

6.35 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer on the Minister of Labour powers with respect to the control of employment during the present emergency; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid.
Before I explain this most important Measure I must make crystal clear, if I can, what it does not do. It does not require a worker to leave employment with which he is content. It does not require a worker to accept employment with a particular employer. There is no question of any pressure being put upon a worker to remain in work which he wishes to leave. Finally, where consent to engagement or re-engagement is refused, the position will be that the worker, if unemployed, will be offered alternative employments in his or her own occupation. I am aware that that is not the usual way of explaining a Bill but, because this is such an important subject potentially, I thought it wise to make these things clear at the outset. I have said these things to avoid any misunderstanding, for the industrial, scientific and professional knowledge and skill of our people will be more vital in this war than ever before.
The Bill has as its main object to secure that the man and woman power of the land is used to the best advantage, that in cases where there is a shortage of essential labour and the work for which these workers are wanted is of vital import-

ance, any labour and knowledge not engaged at the moment shall be directed to the employment most useful to the nation in this struggle. The processes of the Bill are devised so that personnel may be guided as to the employments which are the most vital. The Bill affects, first, the advertising of vacancies by employers and, second, new engagements of labour. It will be seen in Clause 7 that advertising must be interpreted in a wide sense. In both cases the Bill gives power to the Minister to make orders specifying to what classes of employers and workers the requirements are to apply. I wish to make it clear that, before any order is made relating to particular classes of personnel, the recognised bodies of employers and workers will be taken fully into consultation. We have been in consultation with the Trade Union Congress General Council and the British Employers Federation, and they accept the principle of the Bill on the understanding that they will be consulted on any orders to be made and that there will be no undue interference with the arrangements now existing between employers and trade unions in regard to the engagement and employment of workpeople. I wish also to make it clear that it is not expected to use these powers widely in the early days, they will be used at first in the case of limited classes of occupations affecting skilled personnel in those vital industries where there may be a very special demand for them.
There is also a special purpose for which the Bill will be utilised. The Home Secretary yesterday explained the general arrangements which it was intended to make as regards aliens. They involve that aliens who are not interned will in general be free to take employment, but it is necessary that such employment should be controlled by the machinery which this Bill will provide. The Minister, in giving his consent to the employment of aliens, would of course have regard, first, that they are employed on the work most necessary to the nation which they are capable of doing and, second, that they do not displace British workers.
I want the House and the country to understand that in all our dealings in the testing time that lies ahead of us it is our intention to use to the fullest extent the existing voluntary industrial machinery both on the employers' and the workers' side. This is vital as the operations of the Bill potentially, though not in the early


stages, affects all classes of employés, whether manual, technical or professional.
Apart from the restrictions on advertisements, the essential feature of the Bill is that, in the cases to which, after due consultation, it is applied by Order, no new engagement or re-engagement shall take place without the Minister's consent. The primary machinery will, naturally, be that of the Employment Exchange and, in the case of scientific, managerial and professional workers, the National Service Central Register. The Government intend to use to the full the machinery which now exists in various industries, subject only to the governing condition that the labour must be used for the best interest of the national struggle.
After these general words I will say a word about the Clauses, because it may throw light on the Bill and shorten the Committee Debate after this House has passed the Second Reading.
Clause 1 gives the Minister power to make an order prohibiting unless with the Minister's consent an employer to whom the order applies from advertising his wish to engage and from engaging or re-engaging an unemployed man. I need not stress the fact but you have seen it in recent days. It is most undesirable in the national interest for advertisements to appear offering inducements to workers to go from one employer to another, when it may not be to the national advantage that a worker should leave that employer because he may be doing work with the new employer not as essential as the work which he leaves. It happened in one particular direction which I need not stress because hon. Members are aware of that in recent days with regard to building hutments.

Mr. E. Smith: It is most unfair.

Mr. Brown: I agree. Clause 1 (1, a) makes it illegal after the date specified in an order for an employer to whom an order applies to advertise a vacancy for an employé to whom the Order applies unless the Minister consents. Where there is a shortage of a particular class of labour the employer naturally resorts to advertising in various forms. In war time unregulated advertisements for essential classes of work cannot be accepted because of the unsettling effect throughout industry, and particularly upon the ordinary trades union and

organised machinery for settling industrial conditions and carrying out of agreements. I want to make it quite clear also that consent to the publication of advertisement will not be unreasonably withheld.
Clause 1 (1, b) requires consent to be given by or on behalf of the Minister to any engagement or re-engagement covered by an Order.
Clause 1 (2) provides penalties for offences which strike at the root of the Bill, and the maximum penalty —of £100 —is therefore made correspondingly heavy. In addition, the Sub-section makes it an offence, punishable with a maximum penalty of £5 a day, to continue to employ an employé whose engagement was a breach of the provisions of Clause 1 (1, b).
The effect of Clause 1 (4) is that if a person is employed without the Minister's permission in a case where permission is necessary then, although an offence has been committed for which the employer may be punished—and this is important to trades unions—the contract of employment will not be regarded as invalid for other purposes by reason only of such offence. Without this provision it might be held that the contract of employment was invalid, with the result that the employer might, for example, refuse to pay arrears of wages or national insurance contributions; or a claim for workmen's compensation might suffer under Section 3 (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925.
Clause 1 (5) gives the Minister power to vary or revoke an order by a subsequent order. A provision for variation is obviously necessary to enable the Minister to use the new powers to best advantage in conditions which are constantly changing.
Clause 2 gives power to appoint inspectors. In order to secure enforcement of the provision of the Act, it will be necessary for authorised persons to have access to workshops and factories where workpeople within the scope of the orders which may be made are employed. It is anticipated that at the outset it will be possible to secure all the necessary inspection required by arrangement with the existing inspectorates of Government Departments, including my own. If the House will look at the actual Bill they will see that in Clause 3 we take power


to use the inspectors appointed under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, the Factories Act and the Trade Boards Act. This will have the double advantage from the employer's or worker's point of view that then the inspectors will be accustomed to visiting the factories or workshops or other places of industry concerned. Although there will be the Financial Resolution to-morrow in order to provide any extra finance that may be desired, it is not anticipated that extra finance will be needed, at least in the early stages.
Clause 3 defines the powers of the inspectors, and also provides for penalties for refusing to give the inspectors information properly demanded or for giving false information. Clause 4 provides that the Orders made under the Act shall be laid before Parliament with the greatest possible speed, and shall come into force with speed, and the details are given in the Clause. Clause 5 makes any officer or a corporate body who is proved to have connived at or consented to an offence under the Bill liable to prosecution as well as the corporate body itself. It thus makes an officer of a corporate body who is responsible for or assists contravention subject to the same penalties as an individual employer. As to Clause 6, I need to say nothing, except that it is in common form and provides that the expenses incurred shall be met from moneys provided by Parliament. Clause 7 lays it down that in order to give effect to the intentions of the Bill it is necessary to regard as an employer any person who wishes to become an employer within the scope of an Order and similarly to regard as an employer any person who wishes to become such an employer. This Clause defines "employer" and "employer" accordingly.

Mr. E. Smith: It is a very dangerous Bill.

Mr. Brown: It is not. Clause 8 gives power to the Government of Northern Ireland to legislate for Northern Ireland on matters similar to those contained in the Bill. That is necessary from a legal point of view. In Clause 9, which provides the short title, provision is made that the Bill will continue in operation until an Order-in-Council is made declaring that the emergency which occasioned the Bill is at an end.

The House will recognise that this Measure is not only necessary on the productive side of our national effort, but is in the interests, as the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of Employers are agreed, of the harmonious working of industry in which the Government, the trades unions and organised employers will all play their part in securing victory for our cause. I would like to add that when the industrial history of the last four years comes to be written the story of the organisation, production and delivery of national industrial supplies will reveal a wonderful effort on the part of all concerned— the man at the bench as well as employers, technicians and managers. We must have no doubt that it will grow in intensity and practical effect until the victory of the free peoples is assured in this country.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Grenfell: In these recent days when Parliamentary discussion has been so much curtailed the Minister has rightly taken more than the usual time to call attention to the main principles in this Bill. The title of the Bill is not very reassuring. There is a good deal of distrust whenever it is suggested that employment should be controlled. We speak on this side of the House with a full knowledge of the effect that its passage may have on the mass of the people of this country. I took the trouble to ascertain the truth of the statement made by the Minister, that he has been in consultation with those who represent organised labour in this country. His assertion has been corroborated to me. I should not have been prepared to accept the Bill without a definite assurance that those who are responsible for watching over the conditions of labour and employment in this country have been fully consulted and that they have gone so far as to give approval to the principles of the Bill.
This is a Bill which has been brought forward to meet grave emergency conditions. We are confronted with a very grave national task which will tax the entire energies of our people, if the end is to be successfully attained, and from all parts of the House there is ample evidence forthcoming that we are all in this task. Nevertheless, we on these Benches must put forward our views, and


I hope that we shall continue to do so and that there will be a greater response from the other side of the House than there has been hitherto. It seems to me that often when we have spoken our words have appeared to fall on deaf ears on the other side of the House. [Hon. Members: "No."] Yes, it is true I have been very grievously disappointed in that respect. Now that we are in an emergency which calls for organisation, method, and control of every aspect of our national life, we are entitled to urge that in this Measure the widespread control of labour shall not be exercised at the expense of any rights and of any measure of comfort and contentment which our people have a right to expect.
The Minister has rightly said that the task in which we are all engaged will depend more than ever before upon satisfaction of the claims of the work people, and that there is evidence that they are not being ignored when the task of national organisation is being undertaken. Of the men who are wearing uniform and will be called upon to fight, we are exceedingly proud. Men drawn from our class, from the ranks of the common people of this country, have already given evidence of the willingness to run risks, and the courage and bravery which have always been displayed by our men when called upon to fight. There is ample evidence that the spirit and the courage which have characterised our men in the past are not decadent. That is something of which we are proud, and we shall find in that fact consolation and encouragement in the struggle. But the courage and the devotion to duty of the men who are wearing uniform, whether at home or abroad, will be of no avail in the struggle if a dozen or a score of people are not available to supply every fighting man with what is necessary. For every fighting man there will have to be 12 or 15 producing munitions and food and carrying on essential national services. Unless that overwhelming majority during the period of emergency, which may be long or short, are kept contented, unless they are assured of full consideration on the part of the Government and of this House, we shall never get that uninterrupted, loyal and consistent service which will mean success to us in the end.
I speak as one who has been a workman and has been engaged in the

struggle, not against a foreign country but against people who dissented from the proper assessment of our claims. I have even fought against my own neighbours in order that the workers might be assured of proper working and living conditions. I have always had and still have a very grim suspicion of any plan for the regimentation, militarisation, or conscription of labour. I do not believe that this Bill proposes anything of that kind. If it did, I would not stand here to support it. I would not say a single word in support of it if I thought that that was its object. We must be prepared to consider what steps are necessary in the emergency. In normal times I should say that labour should be free to go where it will. We have always made that claim. We have always said that labour should be able to take advantage of all the prospects that offer.

Mr. Charles Brown: And to demand the price it can get.

Mr. Grenfell: I agree, and I hope that labour will get more out of a Bill of this kind, with the full recognition of its place in the national life. If this House is prepared to give labour a square deal to-day and to-morrow, then labour will get more out of this Bill than if it was not organised in this emergency. We must have organisation. If I were not convinced of that necessity in this emergency, I should hesitate to put any restriction upon the rights of labour. You must have organisation if you are to win through in this struggle. It is vitally necessary that labour should in certain circumstances, even in war, certainly in times of peace, for personal, social and health reasons, be allowed to change its location. It is not always well that a man should remain in the same occupation and in the same place. It is right that he should change the location of his employment, and there is no reason why that should not be done, with proper organisation. But I can see the possibility of its being very difficult to ensure that freedom of movement unless there is organisation in the production and the use of labour.
I hope that whatever is done in this House in the organisation of labour will not be done at the expense of the freedom of the worker, but that we shall give the worker the greatest freedom and the


highest measure of reward and remuneration possible, for the services he renders. There is nothing said about that in the Bill. It refers in the Preamble only to the control of employment. I hope it will be made sufficiently clear that this is not a Bill to put labour in handcuffs, and all that kind of nonsense. I am sure that is not intended. If I thought that such a thing was intended, I should not be supporting the Bill. I do not think that if we examine the Bill we shall find that there is much curtailment of the rights of labour, except what is necessary for its more efficient organisation, and to prevent labour being wastefully used and being lured from a place of most efficient service to a place of less efficient service.
I am old enough to remember the last War, when men were drawn away from places of useful employment to places of less useful employment, and I remember that when a sufficient supply of labour was available the concessions which had been promised to them were taken away. That was in the last War; and I say to the Minister that unless he does better than the Government in 1914-18 there will be trouble even during this war. I hope the House will be convinced very soon that the Government are more ready and more prepared to acknowledge the claims of the workers than any Government in the past. I utter no threat, it is just my opinion, but if the Government are not prepared now it had better make up its mind that the workers must be treated better than they were in 1914-18. There will be a good deal of dislocation. There will be local unemployment and it will be necessary to move men about from one part of the country to another. We remember what happened in 1914-18 and the transfers of those days. Let us see that when a transfer is made the utmost guarantees are given that the man shall not suffer.
The Minister knows how necessary it is for him to have a contented people. What a hopeless job he has unless he maintains the confidence of and friendly relations with organised workers. His job is going to be the most ghastly failure unless he obtains this confidence and these friendly relations, and unless we get a contented body of 12,000,000 workers in this country this House will

still hear from them. We have no truce with the Government in these matters. We have agreed to do everything we can to win this war, to defeat Hitlerism and industrial conscription, and to defeat the serfdom of the workers, and we shall not willingly consent to have any instalment of that imposed on the workers of this country by any Government which is in power. I am not so very much afraid of the Bill because there have been consultations, and I have been assured on the matter by those who speak for organised labour. I do not say that anybody outside this House speaks more directly for organised labour than any hon. Member inside the House. I speak for the mine workers; I belong to them even much more than I belong to this House. We represent our constituents because we are members of the industrial community first, and afterwards political representatives in this House, and it is because I know that people outside the House have examined this subject and have been in consultation with the Minister that I say that we have no objection to the introduction of the Bill. There is, however, one particular point on which I hope the Minister will assure the House. I have had conversations with him and have suggested an Amendment which I hope he will see his way to accept. The operative Clause of the Bill is Clause 1. Let me read it:
"(1) The Minister of Labour (hereinafter referred to as ' the Minister ') may by order direct—
(a) that, after such date as may be specified in the Order, an employer to whom the Order applies shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, publish any advertisement stating that he desires to engage any employé to whom the Order applies; and
(b) that, after the said date, such an employer shall not engage or re-engage any such employé unless consent to the engagement or re-engagement has been given by or on behalf of the Minister."
That is the vital provision of the Bill, and I would like to suggest that in the Clause, after the word "Minister," in line 18, should be inserted these words:
Before making an order under the preceding Sub-section the Minister shall, so far as may be practicable, consult such organisations representing respectively employers and employés in any industry as appear to him to be concerned.
Were it not for the problem of the refugees and the possibility of the utilisation of the labour services of many of


these people I would require it to be given a more definite committal, but I know that a large number of these refugees do not belong to any trade union yet. They have no representative labour organisation, and I want it to be possible for these people to come under the care of this House and that they shall not be occupied in labour at the risk of displacing any workers of this country, that they shall not come into competition with our own people for any work. I know that many of these refugees are highly skilled and that many of them would find great joy in being allowed to work for this country. A large number of them are being allowed to fight. These are the services which can be given by these refugees, and I am glad that the Government have made provision for the absorption of these people, but under safeguards and under conditions which will not cause unemployment or be in any way detrimental to the workers of this country. I hope the Minister is prepared to accept such an Amendment.

Mr. E. Brown: I am glad in this case to be able to give an instant response. I made it perfectly plain that we should consult the organised workers and the employers concerned. That is our intention. Now the hon. Member has put it to me, on behalf of the party opposite and on behalf of the organised workers, to make statutory what is our intention; that they would have a statutory right to be consulted. I make an instant response and I say that I will examine these words and, subject to any technical Amendment which may be desirable, I shall have great pleasure in doing that. I am quite sure it will make for a very solid basis for the orderly development of what is not merely in the vital interests of the nation but in the vital interests of no one more than the workers themselves.

Mr. Grenfell: I thank the Minister for that assurance, and I appeal to my hon. Friends to support the insertion of such an Amendment. There is one request that I would make to the Minister now. It is really difficult to make arrangements for the introduction of these fundamental alterations in labour conditions. This Bill might be very dangerous, but with proper safeguards, I believe it will be of immense benefit to the

workers and to the nation at this time. In receiving that assurance from the Minister, I appeal to him not to press on with the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, and if he can see his way to do so, to allow the Amendment to be put in before the Bill is brought up for Second Reading.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman made a request to me, and my response was instant. If the Bill is given a Second Reading to-night, it will facilitate my carrying out the assurance I have given. As hon. Members will have gathered from the speech which I made, it is important, especially from the point of view of aliens, that we should get these powers as quickly as possible. I should have thought that, after my ready acceptance of what will be a statutory right for those concerned to be consulted, the House would have had no difficulty in giving the Bill a Second Reading, and putting the other points on the Committee stage to-morrow.

Mr. Grenfell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the advantage of obtaining leave to introduce the Bill to-night and then having our promise that to-morrow, on Second Reading, he will have the utmost of our good will and co-operation in getting through the Bill on these lines?

Mr. Brown: I was not aware that these difficulties would be raised. If the hon. Gentleman attaches importance to his proposal, I shall have no difficulty in agreeing to it.

Mr. Grenfell: I will say no more now, if the right hon. Gentleman is content to allow the Second Reading to be taken to-morrow.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Markham: I want to put a point of view that has not been expressed in the Debate so far; namely, that of industrial firms which, owing to the crisis, have had to dismiss a great part, if not all, of their staff on account of the commercial and industrial upset. There are a great many firms which, owing to the cessation of orders, are laying off the whole of their staff, and there are a great many other firms which have laid off all but their key men. Many of those men are taking up work when they can find it, and indeed, there is every opportunity for them to do so at once, in what may be regarded


as war industries. In a short time the other industries may recover, but by this Bill an employer who has had to stand off his men may be forbidden to invite back the men he has had to discharge. They may not be doing work of anything like the same value as the work they were formerly doing, and to which they brought a lifetime of skill. Not only does the Bill prevent an employer from inviting those men back, but it also forbids him to engage or re-engage them if they want to come back on their own accord. Obviously, the first step that firms of this kind would have to take— and I speak with a particular knowledge of the woodwork industries of this country—would be to go to the Minister and ask for permission for individual men. At the moment, when the Government offices are chock-a-block with work, one cannot reasonably expect speed of decision in cases that affect individuals.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This would be done through the normal machinery of the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. Markham: I am very glad to have the matter put in that way, and I should be still more happy if we could have an assurance from the Minister that the Bill will apply to as few industries and employers as possible.

Mr. Brown: In answer to the hon. Member, I thought I made it clear in my speech that it would apply only to a limited number of workers where there is a real demand for their particular skill.

Mr. Markham: I appreciate that, but possibly the demand will increase as more and more men are called up for war service. I shall watch the further stages of the Bill with great interest. I think all hon. Members will agree that in normal times there is not a Member of the House who would have had anything but the greatest antagonism towards such a Bill. It is a terrible Bill. It is a Bill that absolutely restricts the freedom of a man to offer his labour where he wants.

Mr. E. Smith: Only certain men.

Mr. Markham: It can be applied to all industries. Under the Bill, we are giving the Minister more power in some ways than any Fascist or Nazi Minister of Labour has in any totalitarian country.

While one has all faith and confidence in the present Minister of Labour, one has to face the fact that in certain war conditions there might be a Minister of Labour who was unsympathetic in the sense that he would not willingly listen to suggestions that were made outside the scope of the Act. We might then see an entire abolition of industrial freedom as we know it, a restriction so severe that it would mean that a man, no matter what might be his skill or ability, would be bound to one particular job for the whole of the emergency.

Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member is entirely misinterpreting the Bill. Perhaps he was not in the House when I gave an explanation of the Bill, and if he was, I can only say that I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. This Bill will not prevent any man from changing his employment; it will not compel him to take any particular job. The hon. Member is making assertions which, however sincere he may be, show that he has a false impression of what the Bill does.

Mr. Markham: Perhaps I may draw attention to the actual wording of the Bill, for it is the wording of the Bill which will be the law, and the intentions of the Minister are a different thing entirely. What is said in the Debates in this House has no force in the courts of law, which have to go by the Act that is passed by the House. I challenge the Minister to deny that the Bill, as worded at the moment, and interpreted by an unsympathetic Minister, can only mean that the Minister would have power to conscribe every industry in the country without exception. The Bill states:
that, after such date as may be specified in the order, an employer to whom the order applies shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, publish any advertisement stating that he desires to engage any employé to whom the order applies.
That gives the Minister absolute power, with 40 Parliamentary days grace. There is no check or control for 40 days, and if Parliament were not called for some time, as it might not be in certain circumstances, the order might be more powerful than ever. I say that it is with the most extreme reluctance that one sees such a Measure brought in, and indeed, it could be brought in only in face of the great problem that is before us. I should like to see what the Minister has


said in his speech brought more into the Bill, for it is the Bill that has to be worked, and not the Minister's speech.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Kirk wood: I hope the Minister will take back this Bill as it stands. We had a bitter experience of this in the last War and it was because of words in the Defence of the Realm Act then, that all the trouble was caused in the engineering industry. Then the Government had the power which the Minister desires to have under this Bill and the workman was denied the right to leave one employer and go to another. Immediately that became the law of the land there was aroused, particularly on the Clyde, the desire to have that idea overthrown. I pointed out to the then Minister of Munitions, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that I had had no desire to leave my employer up to that moment. But it was a different thing when I was denied the right of a free-born Briton to sell my labour, the only thing I possessed, to whatever employer I chose. The same think took place in practically every big establishment on the Clyde. All the key men, men who had practically been reared in the different factories in which they worked, men like the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) felt that desire. I could go over a list of many men, all in Weir's, who had no desire to quit their employers but who resented this. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on behalf of the men of the Clyde, that that Act appeared to brand on my brow a letter "B" just as effectively as if I had been a slave of Beardmore's.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member realises how much I know about his feelings on that matter, but this Bill is drawn in precisely the opposite way. There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent any man going to another employer.

Mr. Gallacher: But the other employer cannot take him.

Mr. Kirk wood: It is stated distinctly:
after the said date such employer shall not engage or re-engage any such employé.
We are not raising this matter merely in order to embarrass the Government. The

very opposite is the case. No one has been more fortunate than the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill. Our union has met him in every way. There is, at the moment, a spirit abroad in our industry that never was in Britain before. We are all backing that spirit. We are all out to crush Nazism in no uncertain fashion. It is because of that I rise here to-night. It is in order that we may keep that spirit. It is all right that there should be the fraternisation which is going on in this House, but the workers in the workshops are still the workers. They had a bitter experience in the last War. We had some of the ablest men in our movement in this House—outstanding men who carried the country with them, in safeguarding our rights.
Those safeguards were not worth anything after the War, after we had surrendered and given up all our rights, although, to be perfectly honest, neither the hon. Member for West Fife nor myself agreed, and it was against our advice, because we said that those rights of ours were not ours to surrender but were ours to defend. But the engineers gave them all up, on the advice of their trade union leaders and the Labour leaders. We got all the pledges that men could get. We had two representatives in the War Cabinet. Let the House never forget. The men in the workshop do not forget, and they are still in the workshop, although we are here, and they know that we had two representatives in the War Cabinet looking after our interests— George N. Barnes, our general secretary, and Arthur Henderson. That is how the men in the shop are looking at it at the moment, and every pledge that was given to them by the Government, given to us in the workshop, was broken. Do not forget that. The result was that in 1920, as I have said in the House to-day already, the engineers were reduced below the wage level of the labourers in many municipalities, and some of our most highly skilled men, the best men we had in our industry, did what they could to get out of those conditions.
It is because of that bitter experience, and not in any way to trouble the Government, that we are suspicious. No one knows better than the Minister that anything that I can do to smooth out matters I shall do, but the workers have to be


considered. They have rights to safeguard. They are being shut up in the workshop the whole of the day, and they are working every day in the week. We have given away all our rights so far as overtime is concerned. We have conceded at the beginning of this war dilution of labour, and we did not do that until the end of the last War. That is the spirit that is abroad at the moment, and the Minister of Labour has to satisfy, not only this House, but the country. The most powerful thing in our country still, with all due respect to this House, is public opinion. It was public opinion that made the present Government give certain concessions, and particularly the statement about old age pensions. Do not let the House forget that public opinion in Britain is the most powerful thing. Public opinion is with the Government, in my opinion. The engineers are with the Government, and the workers in general are with the Government, but the Government have to see to it that they play the game by men who have given up their all and are prepared to give their lives for the land of their nativity.
I may be wrong, but I am utterly suspicious of the ruling class. It is in the marrow of my bones, because my class, right down the ages, have been treated in a manner in which I do not desire to see them treated in my time. I am hoping that, instead of harsher conditions or any division happening, we are getting nearer and nearer to a unified country, as there is at the moment. I have been spending the week-end in good understanding with employers who formerly had not a very good understanding, and it is because I desire to keep that understanding and have given pledges to the workers, who are watching us to see that we do not let them down, that I oppose this Bill. I am satisfied that if the Minister approaches the workers in that spirit and takes them into his confidence—

Mr. E. Brown: May I just say that my instant response to the hon. Member is that that is exactly what I intend to do. I do not intend to make any order without consultation with them. The hon. Member asked me whether I will put that in the Bill. I say that, subject to examining the Amendment, I accept that. Surely that should allay all suspicion. No

order that touches any body of workers will be made without prior consultation, not of my own volition, but because the Act compels me to do it. I understand how deep the hon. Member's feelings are. I have given profound study to the past history of this matter, and I ask him to believe me when I say that his suspicions are really unfounded. We intend to work from the beginning in the fullest and frankest co-operation with organised employers and workers because we know the great contribution that they will make in bringing us the victory we all desire.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am in the same difficulty as those who occupied a like place in the last War. We want an Act of Parliament so framed that a Minister who may not be so sympathetic and have such an understanding and kindly disposition as the present Minister will have to operate it in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman says he will operate it. The workers in the shops to-day, just as in the last War, have the suspicion that under the cloak of patriotism employers may take advantage of them to lower their standard of life. It does not mean only money and so much an hour; it means what they hold more dear, the right to say whether they will work for this or for that employer. It may have its drawbacks for those in control.
I remember when our general secretary stated the case to us and I stated the case against him, he said it was essential when the country was at war that all regulations had to go, that every man would have to give of his best, that the soldier in the field was prepared to give his life and that we were in a like position. That was all very well, but is everybody being placed in that position? At the beginning of this business, when we conscripted the youth of the country, I asked, "Will you conscript wealth?" I am only echoing here the thoughts and aspirations of the key men of the engineering industry, the men that you will have to deal with—it does not matter a button who is on the Front Bench of the Labour party or on the other side. The key men will not be sat on on this occasion in the way they were last time. You can take that from me.
I warned the House on the introduction of the Conscription Bill that the boys on the Clyde would stop work. I have no


connection with them. The boys on the Clyde did stop work. I did what I could, and successfully, to get them back to work. I have seen the boys—10,000 of them. They are prepared to give up all their rights—they are away now to the other extreme—offering themselves as volunteers for any service. That is a spirit, believe me, that neither Germans nor any other race under the sun can crush. Nothing can crush them. It is because of that that I want the Minister to examine this matter thoroughly—because of the good spirit prevailing and because every one of us, as he knows, is backing him all the way, or standing by him. But if the worker is going to be let down then we shall be like those boys—away to the other extreme. That is my last word. I hope the Minister will not let us down on this occasion, and that the words will be in the Bill. I am not going to be satisfied because certain individuals are going to be represented. There was talk of those in the movement being in the Cabinet, but we are going to keep our hands clear, we are not going to be tied up—because we come from a race of servants. We have been the servants of this country, we have been the workers of this country, we have made this country what it is, and all the workers have got has been wages.
Only last Saturday a worker said to me, "What about the means test? Who put the means test on us? Was it the Germans?" I had to ask him, "For God's sake forget those things." Think of me having to meet them and ask them to forget. That is the spirit in which we in the Labour movement are approaching this issue. We are asking them to forget all that has happened in the past. Our class has been crushed and ground—have got mere pittances—no houses for them. Think of it—to have to go and appeal to those folk. It is because of all those things that I ask the Minister, and I ask my party, not to allow a Bill to go through that is not only going to let the worker down but is going to imperil the good spirit that is abroad in the land at the moment.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: During the last day or two I have taken steps to ascertain over as wide an area as possible the views of the people of this country with regard to the present situation. I find that there is

a great spirit among our people with regard to it. In this House we have reflected that spirit, and the maximum amount of good will has been shown in the Debates which have taken place up till now. The minimum number of words has been used in expressing ourselves on any issue that has been raised. On this matter I would be lacking in my duty to the men I represent and with whom I have been proud to be associated since my boyhood days if I did not associate myself with the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).
I would remind the Minister of the very fine spirit which has been shown. I was speaking to a very big employer a few days ago and he said how pleased he was-at the great spirit shown at the conference which had taken place between representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the engineering employers. That is an indication of how the people of this country are approaching this question. If the right hon. Gentlemen for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and Epping (Mr. Churchill) were present this evening they would understand the indignation expressed by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, because it was they who, in 1915 and 1916, had to contend with a situation such as could easily arise under the Bill. It is because we consider that there are very dangerous elements within the Bill that we desire to put on record as soon as possible our observations.
I know many men who are without reproach in character and principle, but it may be that the charge hand takes a dislike to an individual or the foreman does not like how the man stands up for his fellow men, and that individual then loses his employment. That sort of thing creates an atmosphere of jealousy, with all that that means in the workshop. When an individual is placed in a position of that kind he ought not to be treated as is proposed in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping will remember only too well what happened when he introduced the leaving certificates during the last War. They were more responsible than anything else for retarding production during that period, and within a few days the right hon. Gentleman came to the House with Lord Addison and those leaving certifi-


cates were withdrawn. The result was that all the friction was eliminated, good will was restored and production went up immediately.
We see the possibility of similar situation arising out of the administration of the Bill, and that is why we are placing these observations upon record. I hope that no hon. Member misunderstands our attitude on this matter. Our party has given an undertaking, and has made statements in public—and not only our party but our movement—in order to make plain where we stand with regard to the international situation. We are eager to maintain the spirit of our people and to maintain their good will, but a suspicion arises out of our experiences and that is why we are speaking in this way about the present proposals.
May I put the matter in another way? Some of us are concerned about the possibility of inflation. If inflation does come, where should we be under this Bill? Suppose we ask for an increase in wages in order to meet the inflationary policy. If the Government does not control food prices and speculation, the men in the shops will immediately begin to take action; and if the official movement does not reflect this feeling some other movement will grow up, and greater difficulties will have to be faced by the Government. Some of us realise that this situation is one of life or death for the nation, and, therefore, we are prepared to exert the maximum effort in order that the nation may pull through. The Minister gave away the reason for this Bill. He said he had had his attention drawn to certain cases. I spent some time in my holidays investigating criticisms which had been expressed by a Member of this House as to conditions at camps, and I found no justification for those criticisms.

Mr. E. Brown: I made no reference to that. The question was whether it was fair to have to compete with firms working 80 hours a week or more. Therefore, the number of hours was limited to 60.

Mr. Smith: It was not that matter to which I was referring. What I am raising is this—

Mr. Brown: I appreciate the hon. Member's sincerity, as he knows; but the question of what the rate was was not in my mind.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry; I quite appreciate the Minister's attitude, and, therefore, I shall not pursue that point. But there was an hon. Member sitting on a back bench over there who, before the Recess, raised this question with the Secretary for War. I said at the time that that was an inspired question, and I have found that that is so. I have been round to these camps, and have found that the engineering firms are concerned about the increased rates of pay being given to these men, but do not make any allowance for the conditions under which the men are working. Some have to travel to their work from 20 miles away. The employers say that it is great to watch the men work, because of the effort that is being put forward. Should not the men have some consideration when they are working in that way? At present there is a great spirit among the men, and great good will. It is because we do not want to undermine that that we are hoping that we shall not make the same mistake as the right hon. Member for Epping would admit that he made.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to impress on the Minister the necessity of withdrawing this Bill. In the first place, I would endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) as to his experience, and mine and that of many others, during the last War. The most important factor in securing the speediest possible defeat of the Nazi aggressors will be the sustained unity of the working-class people of this country. The one thing that may injure that unity which is so essential for victory is the slightest suspicion that Nazism itself is being introduced. This may not be industrial conscription but it is a very thick chunk of the thin edge. The Minister says that a man can leave his job if he is discontented. of course he can, but he cannot get another. He cannot go to another employer. That other employer cannot engage him. I had experience myself of how this principle operated during the last War. I knew where I was stopped by the Minister and the difficulty that I had. It took all the power and influence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to get me into the place where he was employed.


Will the Minister say that if a man leaves his job, say in Dalmuir, and goes for one in Partick where his home is, the employer in Partick will employ him? It is a very dangerous principle that is being introduced and it can do incalculable harm to the unity of the working class and the people of the country. The Minister told us that if the history of industry during the past four years comes to be written it will be an epic. That is his own word. There has been, according to the Minister, the most remarkable co-ordination between employers, managements, trade union leaders, technicians and workers. If that is the case, where is the need for such a very dangerous expedient? Someone says we require organisation, but we have organisation. The trade union organisation is quite capable of relating the needs of particular industries. All the Minister has to do is to go to a particular trade union, the engineers or any other, and make it clear that skilled workers are required to be taken from one place towards another. The engineers' union will do that and the Transport Workers' Union will do it. It is not a question of organisation. Here is a question of inquisition, a very dangerous thing in the present situation. So I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill and to go on the lines of his own remark, that organisation curing the past four years, without any

compulsion of this kind, has produced the desired results in a way which can be referred to by the Minister in such high and glowing terms, and that organisation is capable of carrying on and ought to be encouraged instead of endangering it by a Measure of this kind.

Question,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer on the Minister of Labour powers with respect to the control of employment during the present emergency; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid,

put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. E. Brown, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Mr. Burgin, the Attorney-General, Captain Crookshank, and Mr. Lennox-Boyd.

CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT BILL,

"to confer on the Minister of Labour powers with respect to the control of employment during the present emergency; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid; "

presented accordingly, and read the First time.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

Adjournment.

Resolved," That this House do now adjourn'' [Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Eight o'Clock.